| Literature DB >> 35421156 |
Alex Mremi1,2, Nina Karnøe Bentzer3, Bariki Mchome2,4, Joseph Mlay2,4, Jan Blaakær5,6, Vibeke Rasch5,6, Doris Schledermann3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adequate and timely access to pathology services is a key to scale up cancer control, however, there is an extremely shortage of pathologists in Tanzania. Telepathology (scanned images microscopy) has the potential to increase access to pathology services and it is increasingly being employed for primary diagnosis and consultation services. However, the experience with the use of telepathology in Tanzania is limited. We aimed to investigate the feasibility of using scanned images for primary diagnosis of pre-malignant and malignant cervical lesions by assessing its equivalency to conventional (glass slide) microscopy in Tanzania.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35421156 PMCID: PMC9009664 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266649
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Fig 1A photograph of the Motic telepathology platform.
Fig 2Telepathology working station portal illustrating the digital image of a normal cervical biopsy, H&E staining 20 x original magnification.
Agreement of diagnoses established on telepathology compared to conventional microscopy across the pathologists.
| Local pathologist | Telepathology | ||||||
| Conventional microscopy | Normal | CIN1 | CIN2 | CIN3 | Cancer | Total | Concordance |
| Normal |
| 4(3.1%) | 1(0.8%) | 2(1.6%) | 0 (0%) | 128 | 121 (94.5%) |
| CIN1 | 5(25%) |
| 2(10%) | 1(5%) | 0(0%) | 20 | 12 (60% |
| CIN2 | 2(50%) | 0(0%) |
| 1(25%) | 0(0%) | 4 | 1 (25%) |
| CIN3 | 4(26.7%) | 1(6.7%) | 0(0%) |
| 1(6.6%) | 15 | 11 (60%) |
| Cancer | 1(12.5%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 3(37.5%) |
| 8 | 4 (50%) |
| Total | 133(76%) | 17(9.7%) | 4(2.3%) | 16(9.1%) | 5(2.9%) | 175 | 153(87.4%) |
| Senior pathologist | Telepathology | ||||||
| Conventional microscopy | Normal | CIN1 | CIN2 | CIN3 | Cancer | Total | Concordance |
| Normal |
| 2(1.5%) | 2(1.5%) | 4(3.1%) | 0(0%) | 130 | 122(93.9%) |
| CIN1 | 3(17.7%) |
| 1(5.9%) | 1(5.9%) | 0(05) | 17 | 12(70.5%) |
| CIN2 | 2(28.6%) | 2(28.6%) |
| 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 7 | 3(42.8%) |
| CIN3 | 2(14.3%) | 0(0%) | 3(21.4%) |
| 0(0%) | 14 | 9(64.3%) |
| Cancer | 1(14.3%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 2(28.5%) |
| 7 | 4(57.1%) |
| Total | 130(74.3%) | 16(9.1%) | 9(5.1%) | 16(9.1%) | 4(2.3%) | 175 | 150(85.7%) |
| Junior pathologist | Telepathology | ||||||
| Conventional microscopy | Normal | CIN1 | CIN2 | CIN3 | Cancer | Total | Concordance |
| Normal |
| 2(1.4%) | 2(1.4%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 139 |
|
| CIN1 | 1(7.1%) |
| 0(0%) | 2(14.3%) | 0(0%) | 14 |
|
| CIN2 | 1(25%) | 0(0%) |
| 2(50%) | 0(0%) | 4 |
|
| CIN3 | 1(8.3%) | 1(8.3%) | 1(8.3%) |
| 0(0%) | 12 |
|
| Cancer | 2(33.3%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 1(16.7%) |
| 6 |
|
| Total | 140(80%) | 14(8%) | 4(2.3%) | 14(8%) | 3(1.7%) | 175 |
|
Agreement between senior and local pathologists for diagnoses established on conventional microscopy and telepathology.
| Concentional microscopy | Local pathologist | ||||||
| Senior pathologist | Normal | CIN1 | CIN2 | CIN3 | Cancer | Total | Concordance |
| Normal |
| 2(1.5%) | 0(0%) | 1(0.8%) | 0(0%) | 130 | 127 (97.7%) |
| CIN1 | 0(0%) |
| 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 17 | 17 (100%) |
| CIN2 | 0(0%) | 1(14.3%) |
| 1(14.3%) | 1(14.3%) | 7 | 4 (57.1%) |
| CIN3 | 1(7.7%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) |
| 0(0%) | 13 | 12 (92.3%) |
| Cancer | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 1(12.5%) |
| 8 | 7 (87.5%) |
| Total | 128(73.1%) | 20(11.4%) | 4(2.3%) | 15(8.6%) | 8(4.6%) | 175 | 168 (96%) |
| Telepathology | Local pathologist | ||||||
| Senior pathologist | Normal | CIN1 | CIN2 | CIN3 | Cancer | Total | Concordance |
| Normal |
| 2(1.5%) | 0(%) | 0(%) | 0(%) | 130 | 128 (98.4) |
| CIN1 | 1(5.3%) |
| 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 19 | 18 (94.7%) |
| CIN2 | 0(0%) | 1(14.3%) |
| 2(0%) | 0(0%) | 7 | 5 (71.4%) |
| CIN3 | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) |
| 1(6.7%) | 15 | 14 (93.3%) |
| Cancer | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) |
| 4 | 4 (100%) |
| Total | 129(73.7%) | 21(12%) | 4(2.3%) | 16(9.1%) | 5(2.9%) | 175 | 169 (96.6%) |
Agreement of diagnoses established on conventional microscopy compared to telepathology across three pathologists.
| Telepathology | Conventional microscopy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | CIN1 | CIN2 | CIN3 | Cancer | Total | Concordance | |
| Normal |
| 36(4.5%) | 5(0.6%) | 8(1.0%) | 1(0.1%) | 799 | 749 (93.7%) |
| CIN1 | 32(29.1%) |
| 2(1.8%) | 6(5.5%) | 1(0.9%) | 110 | 69 (62.7%) |
| CIN2 | 4(15.4%) | 4(15.4%) |
| 8(30.8%) | 0(0%) | 26 | 10 (38.5%) |
| CIN3 | 8(9.6%) | 3(3.6%) | 3(3.6%) |
| 5(6.1%) | 83 | 64 (71.1%) |
| Cancer | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 3(9.4%) |
| 32 | 29 (90.6%) |
| Total | 793(75.5%) | 112(10.7%) | 20(1.9%) | 89(8.5%) | 36(3.4%) | 1050 | 921 (87.7%) |
Overall Cohen’s kappa coefficient (ƙ) = 0.54; 95% Confidence Interval = (0.49–0.57).
Three-point scale agreement of diagnoses established by senior pathologist compared to local and junior pathologists on conventional and scanned images.
| Conventional microscopy | Senior versus local pathologist | Senior versus junior pathologist | Junior versus local pathologist | |||
| Number | Percentages | Number | Percentages | Number | Percentages | |
| Concordance | 116 | 66.3% | 117 | 66.9% | 144 | 82.3% |
| Partial concordance | 55 | 31.4% | 50 | 28.6% | 28 | 16.0% |
| Discordance | 4 | 2.3% | 8 | 4.6% | 3 | 1.7% |
| Total | 175 | 100% | 175 | 100% | 175 | 100% |
| Telepathology | Senior versus local pathologist | Senior verus junior pathologist | Junior versus local pathologist | |||
| Number | Percentages | Number | Percentages | Number | Percentages | |
| Concordance | 129 | 73.7% | 134 | 76.6% | 137 | 78.3% |
| Partial concordance | 44 | 25.1% | 35 | 20% | 31 | 17.7% |
| Discordance | 2 | 1.1% | 6 | 3.4% | 7 | 4% |
| Total | 175 | 100% | 175 | 100% | 175 | 100% |