Literature DB >> 23634907

Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center.

Liron Pantanowitz1, John H Sinard, Walter H Henricks, Lisa A Fatheree, Alexis B Carter, Lydia Contis, Bruce A Beckwith, Andrew J Evans, Avtar Lal, Anil V Parwani.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: There is increasing interest in using whole slide imaging (WSI) for diagnostic purposes (primary and/or consultation). An important consideration is whether WSI can safely replace conventional light microscopy as the method by which pathologists review histologic sections, cytology slides, and/or hematology slides to render diagnoses. Validation of WSI is crucial to ensure that diagnostic performance based on digitized slides is at least equivalent to that of glass slides and light microscopy. Currently, there are no standard guidelines regarding validation of WSI for diagnostic use.
OBJECTIVE: To recommend validation requirements for WSI systems to be used for diagnostic purposes.
DESIGN: The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center convened a nonvendor panel from North America with expertise in digital pathology to develop these validation recommendations. A literature review was performed in which 767 international publications that met search term requirements were identified. Studies outside the scope of this effort and those related solely to technical elements, education, and image analysis were excluded. A total of 27 publications were graded and underwent data extraction for evidence evaluation. Recommendations were derived from the strength of evidence determined from 23 of these published studies, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus.
RESULTS: Twelve guideline statements were established to help pathology laboratories validate their own WSI systems intended for clinical use. Validation of the entire WSI system, involving pathologists trained to use the system, should be performed in a manner that emulates the laboratory's actual clinical environment. It is recommended that such a validation study include at least 60 routine cases per application, comparing intraobserver diagnostic concordance between digitized and glass slides viewed at least 2 weeks apart. It is important that the validation process confirm that all material present on a glass slide to be scanned is included in the digital image.
CONCLUSIONS: Validation should demonstrate that the WSI system under review produces acceptable digital slides for diagnostic interpretation. The intention of validating WSI systems is to permit the clinical use of this technology in a manner that does not compromise patient care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23634907      PMCID: PMC7240346          DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2013-0093-CP

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med        ISSN: 0003-9985            Impact factor:   5.534


  49 in total

1.  Whole slide images for primary diagnostics in dermatopathology: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Shaimaa Al-Janabi; André Huisman; Aryan Vink; Roos J Leguit; G Johan A Offerhaus; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Marijke R van Dijk; Paul J van Diest
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2011-10-26       Impact factor: 3.411

2.  Digital imaging for cytopathology: are we there yet?

Authors:  L Pantanowitz; A V Parwani; W E Khalbuss
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.073

3.  Use of whole slide imaging in surgical pathology quality assurance: design and pilot validation studies.

Authors:  Jonhan Ho; Anil V Parwani; Drazen M Jukic; Yukako Yagi; Leslie Anthony; John R Gilbertson
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.466

4.  Evaluation of whole slide image immunohistochemistry interpretation in challenging prostate needle biopsies.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Fine; Dana M Grzybicki; Russell Silowash; Jonhan Ho; John R Gilbertson; Leslie Anthony; Robb Wilson; Anil V Parwani; Sheldon I Bastacky; Jonathan I Epstein; Drazen M Jukic
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 3.466

5.  Randomized comparison of virtual microscopy and traditional glass microscopy in diagnostic accuracy among dermatology and pathology residents.

Authors:  Laine H Koch; James N Lampros; Laura K Delong; Suephy C Chen; John T Woosley; Antoinette F Hood
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2009-01-14       Impact factor: 3.466

6.  Standardizing the use of whole slide images in digital pathology.

Authors:  Christel Daniel; Marcial García Rojo; Jacques Klossa; Vincenzo Della Mea; David Booker; Bruce A Beckwith; Thomas Schrader
Journal:  Comput Med Imaging Graph       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 4.790

7.  Clinical examination and validation of primary diagnosis in anatomic pathology using whole slide digital images.

Authors:  Drazen M Jukić; Laura M Drogowski; Jamie Martina; Anil V Parwani
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 5.534

8.  Comparative diagnostic accuracy in virtual dermatopathology.

Authors:  Ellen Mooney; Antoinette F Hood; James Lampros; Werner Kempf; Gregor B E Jemec
Journal:  Skin Res Technol       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 2.365

9.  Digital images and the future of digital pathology.

Authors:  Liron Pantanowitz
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2010-08-10

10.  Validation of diagnostic accuracy using digital slides in routine histopathology.

Authors:  László Fónyad; Tibor Krenács; Péter Nagy; Attila Zalatnai; Judit Csomor; Zoltán Sápi; Judit Pápay; Júlia Schönléber; Csaba Diczházi; Béla Molnár
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2012-03-31       Impact factor: 2.644

View more
  158 in total

Review 1.  Morphology in the Digital Age: Integrating High-Resolution Description of Structural Alterations With Phenotypes and Genotypes.

Authors:  Cynthia C Nast; Kevin V Lemley; Jeffrey B Hodgin; Serena Bagnasco; Carmen Avila-Casado; Stephen M Hewitt; Laura Barisoni
Journal:  Semin Nephrol       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 5.299

2.  Improving Classification of Breast Cancer by Utilizing the Image Pyramids of Whole-Slide Imaging and Multi-Scale Convolutional Neural Networks.

Authors:  Li Tong; Ying Sha; May D Wang
Journal:  Proc COMPSAC       Date:  2019-07-09

Review 3.  Review of Telemicrobiology.

Authors:  Daniel D Rhoads; Blaine A Mathison; Henry S Bishop; Alexandre J da Silva; Liron Pantanowitz
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 5.534

4.  Diagnosing Pathological Prognostic Factors in Retinoblastoma: Correlation between Traditional Microscopy and Digital Slides.

Authors:  Pablo Zoroquiain; Patrick Logan; Vasco Bravo-Filho; Natalia Vila; Samir Jabbour; Maria Eugenia Orellana; Miguel N Burnier
Journal:  Ocul Oncol Pathol       Date:  2015-05-06

5.  Evaluation environment for digital and analog pathology: a platform for validation studies.

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas; Marios A Gavrielides; Catherine M Conway; Adam Ivansky; Tyler C Keay; Wei-Chung Cheng; Jason Hipp; Stephen M Hewitt
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-11-12

6.  Digital Microscopy, Image Analysis, and Virtual Slide Repository.

Authors:  Famke Aeffner; Hibret A Adissu; Michael C Boyle; Robert D Cardiff; Erik Hagendorn; Mark J Hoenerhoff; Robert Klopfleisch; Susan Newbigging; Dirk Schaudien; Oliver Turner; Kristin Wilson
Journal:  ILAR J       Date:  2018-12-01

Review 7.  Report on computational assessment of Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes from the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group.

Authors:  Mohamed Amgad; Elisabeth Specht Stovgaard; Eva Balslev; Jeppe Thagaard; Weijie Chen; Sarah Dudgeon; Ashish Sharma; Jennifer K Kerner; Carsten Denkert; Yinyin Yuan; Khalid AbdulJabbar; Stephan Wienert; Peter Savas; Leonie Voorwerk; Andrew H Beck; Anant Madabhushi; Johan Hartman; Manu M Sebastian; Hugo M Horlings; Jan Hudeček; Francesco Ciompi; David A Moore; Rajendra Singh; Elvire Roblin; Marcelo Luiz Balancin; Marie-Christine Mathieu; Jochen K Lennerz; Pawan Kirtani; I-Chun Chen; Jeremy P Braybrooke; Giancarlo Pruneri; Sandra Demaria; Sylvia Adams; Stuart J Schnitt; Sunil R Lakhani; Federico Rojo; Laura Comerma; Sunil S Badve; Mehrnoush Khojasteh; W Fraser Symmans; Christos Sotiriou; Paula Gonzalez-Ericsson; Katherine L Pogue-Geile; Rim S Kim; David L Rimm; Giuseppe Viale; Stephen M Hewitt; John M S Bartlett; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Shom Goel; Huang-Chun Lien; Sibylle Loibl; Zuzana Kos; Sherene Loi; Matthew G Hanna; Stefan Michiels; Marleen Kok; Torsten O Nielsen; Alexander J Lazar; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Loes F S Kooreman; Jeroen A W M van der Laak; Joel Saltz; Brandon D Gallas; Uday Kurkure; Michael Barnes; Roberto Salgado; Lee A D Cooper
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2020-05-12

8.  Single-frame rapid autofocusing for brightfield and fluorescence whole slide imaging.

Authors:  Jun Liao; Liheng Bian; Zichao Bian; Zibang Zhang; Charmi Patel; Kazunori Hoshino; Yonina C Eldar; Guoan Zheng
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2016-10-27       Impact factor: 3.732

9.  Telecytology for Rapid On-Site Evaluation: Current Status.

Authors:  Oscar Lin
Journal:  J Am Soc Cytopathol       Date:  2017-10-12

10.  Accuracy of Digital Pathologic Analysis vs Traditional Microscopy in the Interpretation of Melanocytic Lesions.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Raymond L Barnhill; Michael W Piepkorn; Gary M Longton; David E Elder; Martin A Weinstock; Stevan R Knezevich; Lisa M Reisch; Patricia A Carney; Heidi D Nelson; Andrea C Radick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  JAMA Dermatol       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 10.282

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.