Literature DB >> 36268084

BestCyte® Cell Sorter Imaging System: Primary and adjudicative whole slide image rescreening review times of 500 ThinPrep Pap test thin-layers - An intra-observer, time-surrogate analysis of diagnostic confidence potentialities.

Nikolaos Chantziantoniou1.   

Abstract

Background: The novel Artificial Intelligence-driven BestCyte® Cell Sorter Imaging System (BestCyte) enables hybrid digital screening through classification and sorting of tiles depicting cells in 8 galleries or whole slide image (WSI) reviews.
Objectives: (1) Analyze expenditures of time (minutes) for primary BestCyte cell sorter screening and adjudicative WSI rescreening of 500 blinded, randomized ThinPrep thin-layers to determine review times per Bethesda nomenclature; (2) Analyze review times for NILM qualifier diagnoses reflecting increasing interpretive complexity (i.e., Inflammation, Reactive/Repair, Bacterial cytolysis, Bacterial vaginosis, Atrophy, and Atrophic vaginitis); (3) Challenge accuracy of primary diagnoses (Downgraded, Upheld, and Upgraded) following adjudicative WSI rescreening to assess correlated review times as surrogate indicators of diagnostic confidence in BestCyte functionality (i.e., learning curve); and (4) Correlate primary and adjudicative diagnoses to calculate intra-observer reproducibility Kappa coefficients per Bethesda nomenclature.
Results: Of 500 thin-layers, the mean [primary/adjudicative rescreening review times (minutes)] were: Overall study [1.38/3.94], NILM [1.23/3.02], ASCUS [1.18/2.53], ASC-H [1.73/4.86], AGUS [1.84/6.34], LSIL [1.49/4.16], HSIL [1.52/4.10], CA [0.65/2.57]. Of 500 primary Bethesda diagnoses: 2 (0.40%) downgraded; 483 (96.6%) upheld; 15 (3.00%) upgraded after adjudicative WSI rescreening. Of 354 NILM diagnoses: 0 downgraded; 344 (97.2%) upheld; 10 (2.82%) upgraded. Of 34 ASCUS diagnoses: 2 (5.88%) downgraded; 28 (82.4%) upheld; 4 (11.8%) upgraded. Of 17 ASC-H diagnoses: 0 downgraded; 16 (94.1%) upheld; 1 (5.88%) upgraded. Of AGUS (n=1), LSIL (n=24), HSIL (n=52), CA (n=1), UNSAT (n=17): 100% upheld. Kappa coefficients with 95% (Confidence Intervals): Overall study 0.9305 (0.8983-0.9627), NILM 0.9429 (0.9110-0.9748), ASCUS 0.8378 (0.7393-0.9363), ASC-H 0.9112 (0.8113-0.9999), AGUS 1.0 (1.0-1.0), LSIL 0.9189 (0.8400-0.9978), HSIL 0.9894 (0.9685-0.9999), CA 1.0 (1.0-1.0), UNSAT 1.0 (1.0-1.0). Primary BestCyte cell image review time trends for NILM, ASCUS, LSIL, and HSIL, revealed plateaus relative to decreasing respective adjudicative WSI rescreening times. Conclusions: Given innovative robustness, BestCyte accommodates interpretive fundamentals, enabling shorter ThinPrep thin-layer review times with optimal intra-observer concordance per Bethesda nomenclature through classifying, ranking, sorting, and displaying clinically relevant cells efficiently in galleries. BestCyte fosters continuously optimizing diagnostic confidence learning curves; may supplant manual microscopy for primary screening.
© 2022 The Author.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adjudicative whole slide image rescreening; Artificial Intelligence-based cytology; BestCyte cell sorter imaging system; Intra-observer reproducibility; Review times; Virtual primary screening

Year:  2022        PMID: 36268084      PMCID: PMC9576977          DOI: 10.1016/j.jpi.2022.100095

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pathol Inform


  22 in total

1.  Measuring the significance of workload on performance of cytotechnologists in gynecologic cytology: a study using rapid prescreening.

Authors:  Majorie Deschenes; Andrew A Renshaw; Manon Auger
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-06-25       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Cytology workload calculation-has anything really changed?

Authors:  Ann T Moriarty
Journal:  Cancer Cytopathol       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Comparison of glass slides and various digital-slide modalities for cytopathology screening and interpretation.

Authors:  Matthew G Hanna; Sara E Monaco; Jacqueline Cuda; Juan Xing; Ishtiaque Ahmed; Liron Pantanowitz
Journal:  Cancer Cytopathol       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Digital slide imaging in cervicovaginal cytology: a pilot study.

Authors:  Angela M Wright; Debora Smith; Bakula Dhurandhar; Todd Fairley; Miriam Scheiber-Pacht; Subhendu Chakraborty; Blythe K Gorman; Dina Mody; Donna M Coffey
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2012-09-12       Impact factor: 5.534

5.  The role of monitoring interpretive rates, concordance between cytotechnologist and pathologist interpretations before sign-out, and turnaround time in gynecologic cytology quality assurance: findings from the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytopathology Quality Consensus Conference working group 1.

Authors:  Karen M Clary; Diane D Davey; Sonya Naryshkin; R Marshall Austin; Nicole Thomas; Beth Anne Chmara; Chiara Sugrue; Joseph Tworek
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 5.534

6.  Performance of the CellSolutions Glucyte liquid-based cytology in comparison with the ThinPrep and SurePath methods.

Authors:  Reza Alaghehbandan
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 2.319

7.  Evaluation of CellSolutions BestPrep® automated thin-layer liquid-based cytology Papanicolaou slide preparation and BestCyte® cell sorter imaging system.

Authors:  Agnes Delga; Frederic Goffin; Frederic Kridelka; Raphaël Marée; Chantal Lambert; Philippe Delvenne
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  2014-09-27       Impact factor: 2.319

8.  The impact of digital imaging in the field of cytopathology.

Authors:  Liron Pantanowitz; Maryanne Hornish; Robert A Goulart
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2009-03-06       Impact factor: 2.091

9.  Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Today and Tomorrow.

Authors:  Giovanni Briganti; Olivier Le Moine
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2020-02-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.