Jaume Ordi1, Paola Castillo2, Adela Saco3, Marta Del Pino4, Oriol Ordi5, Leonardo Rodríguez-Carunchio3, Jose Ramírez6. 1. Department of Pathology, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain University of Barcelona, School of Medicine, Barcelona, Spain Centre de Recerca en Salut Internacional de Barcelona (CRESIB), Barcelona, Spain. 2. Department of Pathology, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain Centre de Recerca en Salut Internacional de Barcelona (CRESIB), Barcelona, Spain. 3. Department of Pathology, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Hospital Clínic-Institut d´Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Faculty of Medicine-University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 5. University of Barcelona, School of Medicine, Barcelona, Spain. 6. Department of Pathology, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain University of Barcelona, School of Medicine, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
AIMS: Experience in the use of whole slide imaging (WSI) for primary diagnosis in pathology is very limited. We aimed to determine the accuracy of interpretation of WSI compared with conventional light microscopy (CLM) in the diagnosis of routine gynaecological biopsies. METHODS: All gynaecological specimens (n=452) received over a 2-month period at the Department of Pathology of the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona were analysed blindly by two gynaecological pathologists, one using CLM and the other WSI. All slides were digitised in a Ventana iScan HT (Roche diagnostics) at 200×. All discrepant diagnoses were reviewed, and a final consensus diagnosis was established. The results were evaluated by weighted κ statistics for two observers. RESULTS: The level of interobserver agreement between WSI and CLM evaluations was almost perfect (κ value: 0.914; 95% CI 0.879 to 0.949) and increased during the study period: κ value 0.890; 95% CI 0.835 to 0.945 in the first period and 0.941; 95%; CI 0.899 to 0.983 in the second period. Major discrepancies (differences in clinical management or prognosis) were observed in 9 cases (2.0%). All discrepancies consisted of small lesions (8 high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix, one lymph node micrometastasis of an ovarian carcinoma) underdiagnosed or missed in the WSI or the CLM evaluation. Discrepancies with no or minor clinical relevance were identified in 3.8% of the biopsies. No discrepancy was related to the poor quality of the WSI image. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of gynaecological specimens by WSI is accurate and may be introduced into routine diagnosis. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
AIMS: Experience in the use of whole slide imaging (WSI) for primary diagnosis in pathology is very limited. We aimed to determine the accuracy of interpretation of WSI compared with conventional light microscopy (CLM) in the diagnosis of routine gynaecological biopsies. METHODS: All gynaecological specimens (n=452) received over a 2-month period at the Department of Pathology of the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona were analysed blindly by two gynaecological pathologists, one using CLM and the other WSI. All slides were digitised in a Ventana iScan HT (Roche diagnostics) at 200×. All discrepant diagnoses were reviewed, and a final consensus diagnosis was established. The results were evaluated by weighted κ statistics for two observers. RESULTS: The level of interobserver agreement between WSI and CLM evaluations was almost perfect (κ value: 0.914; 95% CI 0.879 to 0.949) and increased during the study period: κ value 0.890; 95% CI 0.835 to 0.945 in the first period and 0.941; 95%; CI 0.899 to 0.983 in the second period. Major discrepancies (differences in clinical management or prognosis) were observed in 9 cases (2.0%). All discrepancies consisted of small lesions (8 high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix, one lymph node micrometastasis of an ovarian carcinoma) underdiagnosed or missed in the WSI or the CLM evaluation. Discrepancies with no or minor clinical relevance were identified in 3.8% of the biopsies. No discrepancy was related to the poor quality of the WSI image. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of gynaecological specimens by WSI is accurate and may be introduced into routine diagnosis. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
DIAGNOSIS; DIGITAL PATHOLOGY; GYNAECOLOGICAL PATHOLOGY
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
Authors: Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo; Gleyson Kleber Amaral-Silva; Felipe Paiva Fonseca; Natália Rangel Palmier; Marcio Ajudarte Lopes; Paul M Speight; Oslei Paes de Almeida; Pablo Agustin Vargas; Alan Roger Santos-Silva Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo; Lady Paola Aristizábal Arboleda; Natalia Rangel Palmier; Jéssica Montenegro Fonsêca; Mariana de Pauli Paglioni; Wagner Gomes-Silva; Ana Carolina Prado Ribeiro; Thaís Bianca Brandão; Luciana Estevam Simonato; Paul M Speight; Felipe Paiva Fonseca; Marcio Ajudarte Lopes; Oslei Paes de Almeida; Pablo Agustin Vargas; Cristhian Camilo Madrid Troconis; Alan Roger Santos-Silva Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2019-01-26 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Matthew G Hanna; Orly Ardon; Victor E Reuter; Sahussapont Joseph Sirintrapun; Christine England; David S Klimstra; Meera R Hameed Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Maurice B Loughrey; Paul J Kelly; Oisin P Houghton; Helen G Coleman; Joseph P Houghton; Anne Carson; Manuel Salto-Tellez; Peter W Hamilton Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: M Babawale; A Gunavardhan; J Walker; T Corfield; P Huey; A Savage; A Bansal; M Atkinson; H Abdelsalam; E Raweily; A Christian; I Evangelou; D Thomas; J Shannon; E Youd; P Brumwell; J Harrison; I Thompson; M Rashid; G Leopold; A Finall; S Roberts; D Housa; P Nedeva; A Davies; D Fletcher; Muhammad Aslam Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2021-01-23