BACKGROUND: Digital pathology (DP) systems have been validated for routine, histopathological diagnosis by several investigators. The diagnostic matter in previous studies is composed mostly of neoplasms. However, in dermatopathology, inflammatory diseases constitute a greater proportion of cases and have been under-represented in this literature. Herein, we report the results of a prospective, DP side-by-side validation study comparing the histologic assessment of routine, clinical inflammatory dermatopathology cases by whole slide imaging (WSI) and traditional light microscopy (LM). METHODS: Glass slides were digitized at ×40 magnification. Two dermatopathologists rendered diagnoses digitally and immediately thereafter by light microscopy. Additional recuts, special, and immunohistochemical stains obtained during workup were scanned and evaluated similarly. Morphological features used to make diagnoses and appreciable differences in histology were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 332 slides representing 93 cases were examined, including 157 hematoxylin & eosin sections, 132 special stains, and 43 immunohistochemical slides. In total, 333 microscopic features important for rendering inflammatory diagnoses were identified. Two discrepant instances were noted wherein Gram-positive cocci were identified using traditional microscopy but not by DP (×40 scan). Eosinophils, melanin granules, and mucin were identified on both modalities but were noted to have different appearances. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that DP is sufficient for primary diagnosis in inflammatory dermatopathology. Higher magnification scanning may be required to identify submicron features, such as microorganisms. Subtle differences in image quality between these 2 modalities may contribute to varied histologic interpretations of which pathologists should be aware when validating clinical DP systems.
BACKGROUND: Digital pathology (DP) systems have been validated for routine, histopathological diagnosis by several investigators. The diagnostic matter in previous studies is composed mostly of neoplasms. However, in dermatopathology, inflammatory diseases constitute a greater proportion of cases and have been under-represented in this literature. Herein, we report the results of a prospective, DP side-by-side validation study comparing the histologic assessment of routine, clinical inflammatory dermatopathology cases by whole slide imaging (WSI) and traditional light microscopy (LM). METHODS: Glass slides were digitized at ×40 magnification. Two dermatopathologists rendered diagnoses digitally and immediately thereafter by light microscopy. Additional recuts, special, and immunohistochemical stains obtained during workup were scanned and evaluated similarly. Morphological features used to make diagnoses and appreciable differences in histology were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 332 slides representing 93 cases were examined, including 157 hematoxylin & eosin sections, 132 special stains, and 43 immunohistochemical slides. In total, 333 microscopic features important for rendering inflammatory diagnoses were identified. Two discrepant instances were noted wherein Gram-positive cocci were identified using traditional microscopy but not by DP (×40 scan). Eosinophils, melanin granules, and mucin were identified on both modalities but were noted to have different appearances. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that DP is sufficient for primary diagnosis in inflammatory dermatopathology. Higher magnification scanning may be required to identify submicron features, such as microorganisms. Subtle differences in image quality between these 2 modalities may contribute to varied histologic interpretations of which pathologists should be aware when validating clinical DP systems.
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: Leonardo G Lopes; Larissa A Csonka; Jessica A Souza Castellane; Alef Winter Oliveira; Sílvio de Almeida-Júnior; Ricardo Andrade Furtado; Cibele Tararam; Larissa Ortolan Levy; Leandro Zuccolotto Crivellenti; Maria Luiza Moretti; Maria José S Mendes Giannini; Regina H Pires Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 5.293
Authors: Caroline W Laggis; Elizabeth E Bailey; Roberto Novoa; Campbell L Stewart; Benjamin Stoff; Karolyn A Wanat; John Barbieri; Carrie Kovarik Journal: Am J Dermatopathol Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 1.319
Authors: Mehrvash Haghighi; Jay Tolley; Agostino N Schito; Ricky Kwan; Chris Garcia; Shakira Prince; Noam Harpaz; Swan N Thung; Catherine K Craven; Carlos Cordon-Cardo; William H Westra Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2021-12-24
Authors: David J Foran; Eric B Durbin; Wenjin Chen; Evita Sadimin; Ashish Sharma; Imon Banerjee; Tahsin Kurc; Nan Li; Antoinette M Stroup; Gerald Harris; Annie Gu; Maria Schymura; Rajarsi Gupta; Erich Bremer; Joseph Balsamo; Tammy DiPrima; Feiqiao Wang; Shahira Abousamra; Dimitris Samaras; Isaac Hands; Kevin Ward; Joel H Saltz Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2022-01-05
Authors: Christof A Bertram; Nikolas Stathonikos; Taryn A Donovan; Alexander Bartel; Andrea Fuchs-Baumgartinger; Karoline Lipnik; Paul J van Diest; Federico Bonsembiante; Robert Klopfleisch Journal: Vet Pathol Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 2.221
Authors: Thomas George Olsen; B Hunter Jackson; Theresa Ann Feeser; Michael N Kent; John C Moad; Smita Krishnamurthy; Denise D Lunsford; Rajath E Soans Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2018-09-27
Authors: Ayesha S Azam; Islam M Miligy; Peter K-U Kimani; Heeba Maqbool; Katherine Hewitt; Nasir M Rajpoot; David R J Snead Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 3.411