Literature DB >> 28877052

Diagnostic Efficiency in Digital Pathology: A Comparison of Optical Versus Digital Assessment in 510 Surgical Pathology Cases.

Anne M Mills1, Sarah E Gradecki1, Bethany J Horton2, Rebecca Blackwell1, Christopher A Moskaluk1, James W Mandell1, Stacey E Mills1, Helen P Cathro1.   

Abstract

Prior work has shown that digital images and microscopic slides can be interpreted with comparable diagnostic accuracy. Although accuracy has been well-validated, the interpretative time for digital images has scarcely been studied and concerns about efficiency remain a major barrier to adoption. We investigated the efficiency of digital pathology when compared with glass slide interpretation in the diagnosis of surgical pathology biopsy and resection specimens. Slides were pulled from 510 surgical pathology cases from 5 organ systems (gastrointestinal, gynecologic, liver, bladder, and brain). Original diagnoses were independently confirmed by 2 validating pathologists. Diagnostic slides were scanned using the Philips IntelliSite Pathology Solution. Each case was assessed independently on digital and optical by 3 reading pathologists, with a ≥6 week washout period between modalities. Reading pathologists recorded assessment times for each modality; digital times included time to load the case. Diagnostic accuracy was determined based on whether a rendered diagnosis differed significantly from the original diagnosis. Statistical analysis was performed to assess for differences in interpretative times across modalities. All 3 reading pathologists showed comparable diagnostic accuracy across optical and digital modalities (mean major discordance rates with original diagnosis: 4.8% vs. 4.4%, respectively). Mean assessment times ranged from 1.2 to 9.1 seconds slower on digital versus optical. The slowest reader showed a significant learning effect during the course of the study so that digital assessment times decreased over time and were comparable with optical times by the end of the series. Organ site and specimen type did not significantly influence differences in interpretative times. In summary, digital image reading times compare favorably relative to glass slides across a variety of organ systems and specimen types. Mean increase in assessment time is 4 seconds/case. This time can be minimized with experience and may be further balanced by the improved ease of electronic chart access allowed by digital slide viewing, as well as quantitative assessments which can be expedited on digital images.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28877052     DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000930

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  13 in total

1.  The performance of digital microscopy for primary diagnosis in human pathology: a systematic review.

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

Review 2.  Integrating digital pathology into clinical practice.

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

3.  AI Model for Prostate Biopsies Predicts Cancer Survival.

Authors:  Kevin Sandeman; Sami Blom; Ville Koponen; Anniina Manninen; Juuso Juhila; Antti Rannikko; Tuomas Ropponen; Tuomas Mirtti
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-20

4.  Comparative Assessment of Digital Pathology Systems for Primary Diagnosis.

Authors:  Sathyanarayanan Rajaganesan; Rajiv Kumar; Vidya Rao; Trupti Pai; Neha Mittal; Ayushi Sahay; Santosh Menon; Sangeeta Desai
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2021-06-09

5.  Digital Versus Optical Diagnosis of Follicular Patterned Thyroid Lesions.

Authors:  Ayat Aloqaily; Antonio Polonia; Sofia Campelos; Nusaiba Alrefae; Joao Vale; Ana Caramelo; Catarina Eloy
Journal:  Head Neck Pathol       Date:  2020-10-31

6.  The NASSS-CAT Tools for Understanding, Guiding, Monitoring, and Researching Technology Implementation Projects in Health and Social Care: Protocol for an Evaluation Study in Real-World Settings.

Authors:  Trisha Greenhalgh; Harvey Maylor; Sara Shaw; Joseph Wherton; Chrysanthi Papoutsi; Victoria Betton; Natalie Nelissen; Andreas Gremyr; Alexander Rushforth; Mona Koshkouei; John Taylor
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2020-05-13

7.  Impact of Deep Learning Assistance on the Histopathologic Review of Lymph Nodes for Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Authors:  David F Steiner; Robert MacDonald; Yun Liu; Peter Truszkowski; Jason D Hipp; Christopher Gammage; Florence Thng; Lily Peng; Martin C Stumpe
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 6.394

8.  Whole slide imaging compared with light microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical neuropathology: a validation study.

Authors:  Ali Alassiri; Amna Almutrafi; Fahd Alsufiani; Atheer Al Nehkilan; Alaa Al Salim; Hesham Musleh; Mohammad Aziz; Walid Khalbuss
Journal:  Ann Saudi Med       Date:  2020-02-06       Impact factor: 1.526

9.  A Regulatory Science Initiative to Harmonize and Standardize Digital Pathology and Machine Learning Processes to Speed up Clinical Innovation to Patients.

Authors:  Hetal Desai Marble; Richard Huang; Sarah Nixon Dudgeon; Amanda Lowe; Markus D Herrmann; Scott Blakely; Matthew O Leavitt; Mike Isaacs; Matthew G Hanna; Ashish Sharma; Jithesh Veetil; Pamela Goldberg; Joachim H Schmid; Laura Lasiter; Brandon D Gallas; Esther Abels; Jochen K Lennerz
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2020-08-06

10.  Whole Slide Imaging Versus Microscopy for Primary Diagnosis in Surgical Pathology: A Multicenter Blinded Randomized Noninferiority Study of 1992 Cases (Pivotal Study).

Authors:  Sanjay Mukhopadhyay; Michael D Feldman; Esther Abels; Raheela Ashfaq; Senda Beltaifa; Nicolas G Cacciabeve; Helen P Cathro; Liang Cheng; Kumarasen Cooper; Glenn E Dickey; Ryan M Gill; Robert P Heaton; René Kerstens; Guy M Lindberg; Reenu K Malhotra; James W Mandell; Ellen D Manlucu; Anne M Mills; Stacey E Mills; Christopher A Moskaluk; Mischa Nelis; Deepa T Patil; Christopher G Przybycin; Jordan P Reynolds; Brian P Rubin; Mohammad H Saboorian; Mauricio Salicru; Mark A Samols; Charles D Sturgis; Kevin O Turner; Mark R Wick; Ji Y Yoon; Po Zhao; Clive R Taylor
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 6.394

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.