Importance: Digital pathology represents a transformative technology that impacts dermatologists and dermatopathologists from residency to academic and private practice. Two concerns are accuracy of interpretation from whole-slide images (WSI) and effect on workflow. Studies of considerably large series involving single-organ systems are lacking. Objective: To evaluate whether diagnosis from WSI on a digital microscope is inferior to diagnosis of glass slides from traditional microscopy (TM) in a large cohort of dermatopathology cases with attention on image resolution, specifically eosinophils in inflammatory cases and mitotic figures in melanomas, and to measure the workflow efficiency of WSI compared with TM. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three dermatopathologists established interobserver ground truth consensus (GTC) diagnosis for 499 previously diagnosed cases proportionally representing the spectrum of diagnoses seen in the laboratory. Cases were distributed to 3 different dermatopathologists who diagnosed by WSI and TM with a minimum 30-day washout between methodologies. Intraobserver WSI/TM diagnoses were compared, followed by interobserver comparison with GTC. Concordance, major discrepancies, and minor discrepancies were calculated and analyzed by paired noninferiority testing. We also measured pathologists' read rates to evaluate workflow efficiency between WSI and TM. This retrospective study was caried out in an independent, national, university-affiliated dermatopathology laboratory. Main Outcomes and Measures: Intraobserver concordance of diagnoses between WSI and TM methods and interobserver variance from GTC, following College of American Pathology guidelines. Results: Mean intraobserver concordance between WSI and TM was 94%. Mean interobserver concordance was 94% for WSI and GTC and 94% for TM and GTC. Mean interobserver concordance between WSI, TM, and GTC was 91%. Diagnoses from WSI were noninferior to those from TM. Whole-slide image read rates were commensurate with WSI experience, achieving parity with TM by the most experienced user. Conclusions and Relevance: Diagnosis from WSI was found equivalent to diagnosis from glass slides using TM in this statistically powerful study of 499 dermatopathology cases. This study supports the viability of WSI for primary diagnosis in the clinical setting.
Importance: Digital pathology represents a transformative technology that impacts dermatologists and dermatopathologists from residency to academic and private practice. Two concerns are accuracy of interpretation from whole-slide images (WSI) and effect on workflow. Studies of considerably large series involving single-organ systems are lacking. Objective: To evaluate whether diagnosis from WSI on a digital microscope is inferior to diagnosis of glass slides from traditional microscopy (TM) in a large cohort of dermatopathology cases with attention on image resolution, specifically eosinophils in inflammatory cases and mitotic figures in melanomas, and to measure the workflow efficiency of WSI compared with TM. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three dermatopathologists established interobserver ground truth consensus (GTC) diagnosis for 499 previously diagnosed cases proportionally representing the spectrum of diagnoses seen in the laboratory. Cases were distributed to 3 different dermatopathologists who diagnosed by WSI and TM with a minimum 30-day washout between methodologies. Intraobserver WSI/TM diagnoses were compared, followed by interobserver comparison with GTC. Concordance, major discrepancies, and minor discrepancies were calculated and analyzed by paired noninferiority testing. We also measured pathologists' read rates to evaluate workflow efficiency between WSI and TM. This retrospective study was caried out in an independent, national, university-affiliated dermatopathology laboratory. Main Outcomes and Measures: Intraobserver concordance of diagnoses between WSI and TM methods and interobserver variance from GTC, following College of American Pathology guidelines. Results: Mean intraobserver concordance between WSI and TM was 94%. Mean interobserver concordance was 94% for WSI and GTC and 94% for TM and GTC. Mean interobserver concordance between WSI, TM, and GTC was 91%. Diagnoses from WSI were noninferior to those from TM. Whole-slide image read rates were commensurate with WSI experience, achieving parity with TM by the most experienced user. Conclusions and Relevance: Diagnosis from WSI was found equivalent to diagnosis from glass slides using TM in this statistically powerful study of 499 dermatopathology cases. This study supports the viability of WSI for primary diagnosis in the clinical setting.
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
Authors: Thomas W Bauer; Lynn Schoenfield; Renee J Slaw; Lisa Yerian; Zhiyuan Sun; Walter H Henricks Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: C Urso; F Rongioletti; D Innocenzi; C Saieva; D Batolo; S Chimenti; R Filotico; R Gianotti; M Lentini; C Tomasini; A Rebora; M Pippione Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: David C Wilbur; Kalil Madi; Robert B Colvin; Lyn M Duncan; William C Faquin; Judith A Ferry; Matthew P Frosch; Stuart L Houser; Richard L Kradin; Gregory Y Lauwers; David N Louis; Eugene J Mark; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Joseph Misdraji; Gunnlauger P Nielsen; Martha B Pitman; Andrew E Rosenberg; R Neal Smith; Aliyah R Sohani; James R Stone; Rosemary H Tambouret; Chin-Lee Wu; Robert H Young; Artur Zembowicz; Wolfgang Klietmann Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: M W Piepkorn; R L Barnhill; L A Cannon-Albright; D E Elder; D E Goldgar; C M Lewis; J C Maize; L J Meyer; M S Rabkin; R W Sagebiel Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Rebecca Randell; Roy A Ruddle; Claudia Mello-Thoms; Rhys G Thomas; Phil Quirke; Darren Treanor Journal: Histopathology Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 5.087
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: 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
Authors: Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo; Gleyson Kleber do Amaral-Silva; Maria Eduarda Pérez-de-Oliveira; Karen Patricia Domínguez Gallagher; Cinthia Veronica Bardalez López de Cáceres; Ana Luiza Oliveira Corrêa Roza; Amanda Almeida Leite; Bruno Augusto Linhares Almeida Mariz; Carla Isabelly Rodrigues-Fernandes; Felipe Paiva Fonseca; Marcio Ajudarte Lopes; Paul M Speight; Syed Ali Khurram; Jacks Jorge Júnior; Manoela Domingues Martins; Oslei Paes de Almeida; Alan Roger Santos-Silva; Pablo Agustin Vargas Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2021-03-13 Impact factor: 4.064
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: Yannick Van Herck; Asier Antoranz; Madhavi Dipak Andhari; Giorgia Milli; Oliver Bechter; Frederik De Smet; Francesca Maria Bosisio Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 6.244
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: Julianna D Ianni; Rajath E Soans; Sivaramakrishnan Sankarapandian; Ramachandra Vikas Chamarthi; Devi Ayyagari; Thomas G Olsen; Michael J Bonham; Coleman C Stavish; Kiran Motaparthi; Clay J Cockerell; Theresa A Feeser; Jason B Lee Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Sam Polesie; Phillip H McKee; Jerad M Gardner; Martin Gillstedt; Jan Siarov; Noora Neittaanmäki; John Paoli Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2020-10-20