Diagnostic Accuracy of Second-Opinion Diagnoses Based on Still Images

Human Pathology

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 129-135

  Nordrum, Ivar ^a   Johansen, Monika ^b   Amin, Anil ^b   Isaksen, Vidar ^b   Ludvigsen, Jon Arne ^b  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Diagnostic accuracy; Second opinion; Still images; Surgical pathology; Telemedicine; Telepathology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CARCINOMA; COMPUTER NETWORK; CONSULTATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ENDOCRINE TUMOR; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; LYMPHOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; SARCOMA; SKIN TUMOR; SOFT TISSUE TUMOR; TELECOMMUNICATION;

EID: 1642458108     PISSN: 00468177     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2003.08.010     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Weinstein RS, Bloom KJ, Rozek L: Telepathology and the networking of pathology diagnostic services. Arch Pathol Lab Med 111:646-652, 1987
2. Kayser K, Oberholzer M, Weisse G, et al: Long distance image transfer: First results of its use in histopathological diagnosis. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand 99:808-814, 1991
3. Leslie KO, Fechner RE, Kempson RL: Second opinion in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 106(suppl 1):S58-S64, 1996
4. Weinberg DS, Allaert FA, Dusserre P, et al: Telepathology diagnosis by means of digital still images: An international validation study. HUM PATHOL 27:111-118, 1996
5. Della Mea V, Forti S, Puglisi F, et al: Telepathology using Internet multimedia electronic mail: remote consultation on gastrointestinal pathology. J Telemed Telecare 2:28-34, 1996
6. Della Mea V, Puglisi F, Forti S, et al: Expert pathology consultation through the internet: Melanoma versus benign melanocytic tumours. J Telemed Telecare 3 (suppl 1):17-19, 1997
7. Eusebi V, Foschini L, Erde S, et al: Transcontinental consults in surgical pathology via the internet. HUM PATHOL 28:13-16, 1997
8. Halliday BE, Bhattacharyya AK, Graham AR, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of an international static-imaging telepathology consultation service. HUM PATHOL 28:17-21, 1997
9. Weinstein MH, Epstein JI: Telepathology diagnosis of prostate needle biopsies. HUM PATHOL 28:22-29, 1997
10. Raab SS, Robinson RA, Snider TH, et al: Telepathology review: Utility, diagnostic accuracy, and interobserver variability on a difficult case consultation service. Mod Pathol 10:630-635, 1997
11. Williams BH, Florabel G, Mullick G, et al: Clinical evaluation of an international static image-based telepathology service. HUM PATHOL 32:1309-1317, 2001
12. Piccolo D, Soyer P, Burgdorf W, et al: Concordance between telepathologic diagnosis and conventional histopathologic diagnosis. Arch Dermatol 138:53-58, 2002
13. Cross SS, Burton JL, Dubé AK, et al: Offline telepathology diagnosis of colorectal polyps: A study of interobserver agreement and comparison with glass slide diagnoses. J Clin Pathol 55:305-308, 2002
14. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI: Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer 86:2426-2435, 1999
15. Cook IS, McCormick D, Poller DN: Referrals for second opinion in surgical pathology: Implications for management of cancer patients in the UK. Eur J Surg Oncol 27:589-594, 2001
16. Coblentz TR, Mills SE, Theodorescu D: Impact of second opinion pathology in the definitive management of patients with bladder carcinoma. Cancer 91:284-290, 2001
17. Westra WH, Kronz JD, Eisele DW: The impact of second opinion surgical pathology on the practice of head and neck surgery: A decade experience at a large referral hospital. Head Neck 24:684-693, 2002
18. http://www.afip.org (accessed March 2003)
19. Dietel M, Nguyen-Dobinsky TN, Hufnagl P: The UICC Telepathology Consultation Center. Cancer 89:187-191, 2000
20. http://www.uicc-tpcc.org (accessed March 2003)
21. Nordrum I, Engum B, Ericcson H, et al: Remote frozen section service: A telepathology prosject in northern Norway. HUM PATHOL 22:514-518, 1991
22. Eide TJ, Nordrum I, Stalsberg H: The validity of frozen section diagnosis based on videomicroscopy. Zentralblatt für Pathologie 138:411-414, 1992
23. Rigbt AS: Statistical methods in epidemiology, V. Towards an understanding of the kappa coefficient. Disabil Rehabil 22:339-344, 2000
24. Altman DG: Practical Statistics for Medical Research. New York, Chapman & Hall, 1991
25. Foran DJ, Meer PP, Papathomas T, et al: Compression guidelines for diagnostic telepathology. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 1:55-60, 1997
26. Hernandez E, Bhagavan BS, Parmley TH, et al: Interobserver variability in the interpretation of epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 17:117-123, 1984
27. Theissig F, Kunze KD, Haroske G, et al: Histological grading of breast cancer. Interobserver, reproducibility and prognostic significance. Pathol Res Pract 186:732-736, 1990
28. Lund B, Thomsen HK, Olsen J: Reproducibility of histopathological evaluation in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Clinical implications. APMIS 99:353-358, 1991
29. Duray PH, DerSimonian R, Barnhill R, et al: An analysis of interobserver recognition of the histopathologic features of dysplastic nevi from a mixed group of nevomelanocytic lesions. J Am Acad Dermatol 27:741-749, 1992
30. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al: Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol 16:1133-1143, 1992
31. Sorensen JB, Hirsch FR, Gazdar A, et al: Interobserver variability in histopathologic subtyping and grading of pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Cancer 71:2971-2976, 1993
32. Hastrup N, Clemmensen OJ, Spaun E, et al: Dysplastic naevus: Histological criteria and their inter-observer reproducibility. Histopathology 24:503-509, 1994
33. Allam CK, Bostwick DG, Hayes JA, et al: Interobserver variability in the diagnosis of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol 9:742-751, 1996
34. McCluggage WG, Bharucha H, Caughley LM, et al: Interobserver variation in the reporting of cervical colposcopic biopsy specimen: Comparison of grading systems. J Clin Pathol 49:833-835, 1996
35. Ozdamar SO, Sarikaya S, Yildiz L, et al: Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of WHO and Gleason histologic grading systems in prostatic adenocarcinomas. Int Urol Nephrol 28:73-77, 1996
36. Corona R, Mele A, Amini M, et al: Interobserver variability on the histopathologic diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma and other pigmented skin lesions. J Clin Oncol 14:1218-1223, 1996
37. Raabe NK, Schistad O, Sauer T, et al: Prognosis of radically operated breast carcinoma patients: A retrospective study of 167 consecutive patients with emphasis on histopathological grading, reproducibility and mean nuclear area. APMIS 105:363-370, 1997
38. Raab SS, Robinson RA, Jensen CS, et al: Mucinous tumors of the ovary: Interobserver diagnostic variability and utility of sectioning protocols. Arch Pathol Lab Med 121:1192-1198, 1997
39. Hahm GK, Niemann TH, Lucas JG, et al: The value of second opinion in gastrointestinal and liver pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 125:736-739, 2001
40. Arbiser ZK, Folpe AL, Weiss SW: Consultative (expert) second opinion in soft tissue pathology: Analysis of problem-prone diagnostic situations. Am J Clin Pathol 116:473-476, 2001
41. Bejarano PA, Koehler A, Sherman KE: Second opinion pathology in liver biopsy interpretation. Am J Gastroenterol 96:3158-3164, 2001