Clinical examination and validation of primary diagnosis in anatomic pathology using whole slide digital images

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 135, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 372-378

  Jukić, Drazen M ^a,b,c   Drogowski, Laura M ^a   Martina, Jamie ^a   Parwani, Anil V ^b  

^a Departments of Dermatology   (United States)

^b Department of Pathology ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFERENCE PAPER; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; MICROSCOPY; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; TELEPATHOLOGY; VALIDATION STUDY;

HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MICROSCOPY; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TELEPATHOLOGY;

EID: 79952929049     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (55)

1. Weinstein RS. Prospects for telepathology [editorial]. Hum Pathol. 1986; 17(5):433-434.
2. Gilbertson JR, Ho J, Anthony L, Jukic DM, Yagi Y, Parwani AV. Primary histologic diagnosis using automated whole slide imaging: a validation study. BMC Clin Pathol. 2006;6:4.
3. Ho J, Parwani AV, Jukic DM, Yagi Y, Anthony L, Gilbertson JR. Use of whole slide imaging in surgical pathology quality assurance: design and pilot validation studies. Hum Pathol. 2006;37(3):322-331. (Pubitemid 43277520)
4. Jukic´ DM, Bifulco CB. Telepathology and pathology at distance: an overview. Croat Med J. 1999;40(3):421-424.
5. Weinstein RS, Descour MR, Liang C, et al. Telepathology overview: from concept to implementation. Hum Pathol. 2001;32 (12): 1283-1299. (Pubitemid 34041048)
6. Weinstein RS, Descour MR, Liang C, et al. An array microscope for ultrarapid virtual slide processing and telepathology: design, fabrication, and validation study. Hum Pathol. 2004;35(11):1303-1314. (Pubitemid 39601569)
7. Kalinski T, Zwonitzer R, Sel S, et al. Virtual 3D microscopy using multiplane whole slide images in diagnostic pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;130(2):259-264.
8. Li X, Liu J, Xu H, et al. A feasibility study of virtual slides in surgical pathology in China. Hum Pathol. 2007;38(12):1842-1848. (Pubitemid 350179933)
9. Slodkowska J, Chyczewski L, Wojciechowski M. Virtual slides: application in pulmonary pathology consultations. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2008;46(1): 121-124.
10. Kumar RK, Freeman B, Velan GM, De Permentier PJ. Integrating histology and histopathology teaching in practical classes using virtual slides. Anat Rec B New Anat. 2006;289(4):128-133. (Pubitemid 44215520)
11. Glatz-Krieger K, Glatz D, Mihatsch MJ. Virtual slides: high-quality demand, physical limitations, and affordability. Hum Pathol. 2003,34(101:968-974.
12. Weinstein RS. Static image telepathology in perspective. Hum Pathol. 1996;27(2):99-101.
13. Dunn BE, Almagro UA, Choi H, et al. Dynamic-robotic telepathology: Department of Veterans Affairs feasibility study. Hum Pathol. 1997;28(1):8-12. (Pubitemid 27044474)
14. Halliday BE, Bhattacharyya AK, Graham AR, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of an international static-imaging telepathology consultation service. Hum Pathol. 1997;28(1):17-21. (Pubitemid 27044476)
15. Weinstein LJ, Epstein JI, Edlow D, Westra WH. Static image analysis of skin specimens: the application of telepathology to frozen section evaluation. Hum Pathol. 1997;28(1) :30-35. (Pubitemid 27044478)
16. Weinstein RS, Bhattacharyya AK, Graham AR, Davis JR. Telepathology: a ten-year progress report. Hum Pathol. 1997;28(1):1-7. (Pubitemid 27044473)
17. Danilovic Z, Dzubur A, Seiwerth S. Concept of telepathology in Croatia. Arch Anat Cytol Pathol. 1995;43(4):282-284.
18. Downing SW. A multimedia-based histology laboratory course: elimination of the traditional microscope laboratory. Medinfo. 1995;8(pt 2):1695.
19. Mars M, McLean M. Students' perceptions of a multimedia computer-aided instruction resource in histology. S Afr Med J. 1996;86(9):1098-1102.
20. Dennis T, Start RD, Cross SS. The use of digital imaging, video conferencing, and telepathology in histopathology: a national survey. J Clin Pathol. 2005;58(3):254-258. (Pubitemid 40380318)
21. Gongora Jara H, Barcelo HA. Telepathology and continuous education: important tools for pathologists of developing countries. Diagn Pathol. 2008; 3(suppl 1):S24.
22. Chandra S, Elliott T, Vinciullo C. Telepathology as an aid in Mohs micrographic surgery. Dermatol Surg. 2004;30(6):945-947. (Pubitemid 38765739)
23. Desai S, Patil R, Chinoy R, et al. Experience with telepathology at a tertiary cancer centre and a rural cancer hospital. Natl Med J India. 2004;17(1):17-19. (Pubitemid 38461225)
24. Odze RD, Tomaszewski JE, Furth EE, et al. Variability in the diagnosis of dysplasia in ulcerative colitis by dynamic telepathology. Oncol Rep. 2006;16(5): 1123-1129.
25. Fronza CF, Fronza H Jr. Telepathology: diagnostic aid, second medical opinion and validation of the diagnostic efficiency. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. October 2007:958.
26. Desai S, Ghosh TK, Chinoy R, Mohan A, Dinshaw KA. Telepathology at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai and Barshi, a rural centre in Maharashtra. Natl Med J India. 2002; 15(61:363-364.
27. Desai S, Patil R, Kothari A, et al. Static telepathology consultation service between Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai and Nargis Dutt Memorial Charitable Hospital, Barshi, Solapur, Maharashtra: an analysis of the first 100 cases. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2004;47(4):480-485.
28. Baruah MK. The practice of telepathology in India. J Postgrad Med. 2005; 51(4):316-318. (Pubitemid 43075890)
29. Schneider J. Telepathology at Tikur Anbessa Hospital: how telemedicine works. Ethiop Med J. 2005;43(1):51-53.
30. Chorneyko K, Giesler R, Sabatino D, et al. Telepathology for routine light microscopic and frozen section diagnosis. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117(51:783-790.
31. Kaplan KJ, Burgess JR, Sandberg GD, Myers CP, Bigott TR, Greenspan RB. Use of robotic telepathology for frozen-section diagnosis: a retrospective trial of a telepathology system for intraoperative consultation. Mod Pathol. 2002,15(11): 1197-1204. (Pubitemid 35435138)
32. Marchevsky AM, Lau SK, Khanafshar E, et al. Internet teleconferencing method for telepathology consultations from lung and heart transplant patients. Hum Pathol. 2002;33(4):410-414. (Pubitemid 34627591)
33. Leslie KO, Rosai J. Standardization of the surgical pathology report: formats, templates, and synoptic reports. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994;11(4):253-257. (Pubitemid 24376704)
34. Karim RZ, van den Berg KS, Colman MH, McCarthy SW, Thompson JF, Scolyer RA. The advantage of using a synoptic pathology report format for cutaneous melanoma. Histopathology. 2008;52:130-138.
35. Balan R, Amǎ;linei C, Pricop F, et al. Diagnostic difficulties in mammary gland adenosis: case report [in Romanian]. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat last. 2005;109(2):351-354.
36. Murad TM. Evaluation of the different techniques utilized in diagnosing breast lesions. Acta Cytol. 1975; 19(61:499-508.
37. Niu Y, Fu XL, Yu Y, Wang PP, Cao XC. Intra-operative frozen section diagnosis of breast lesions: a retrospective analysis of 13,243 Chinese patients. Chin Med J (Engl). 2007;120(8):630-635. (Pubitemid 46767794)
38. Troxel DB. Medicolegal aspects of error in pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130(5):617-619. (Pubitemid 43736860)
39. Staradub VL, Messenger KA, Hao N, Wiley EL, Morrow M. Changes in breast cancer therapy because of pathology second opinions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9(101:982-987.
40. Jara-Lazaro AR, Tan PH. Pattern and spectrum of morphology referrals in breast pathology consultation. Pathology. 2008;40(6):564-572.
41. Werling RW, Hwang H, Yaziji H, Gown AM. Immunohistochemical distinction of invasive from noninvasive breast lesions: a comparative study of p63 versus calponin and smooth muscle myosin heavy chain. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27(1):82-90. (Pubitemid 36014901)
42. Kalof AN, Tam D, Beatty B, Cooper K. Immunostaining patterns of myoepithelial cells in breast lesions: a comparison of CD10 and smooth muscle myosin heavy chain. J Clin Pathol. 2004;57(6):625-629. (Pubitemid 38725765)
43. Cimpean AM, Raica M, Narita D. Diagnostic significance of the immunoexpression of CD34 and smooth muscle cell actin in benign and malignant tumors of the breast. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2005;46(2):123-129.
44. Foucar E, Wick MR. An observational examination of the literature in diagnostic anatomic pathology. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2005;22(2):126-138.
45. Kronz JD, Westra WH. The role of second opinion pathology in the management of lesions of the head and neck. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;13(2):81-84. (Pubitemid 40388248)
46. Piotrowski MM, Bessette RL, Chensue S, et al. Learning to improve safety: false-positive pathology report results in wrongful surgery. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31(3):123-131.
47. Frable WJ. Surgical pathology - second reviews, institutional reviews, audits, and correlations: what's out there? Error or diagnostic variation? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130(5):620-625. (Pubitemid 43736861)
48. Smellie WS, Forth JO, McNulty CA, et al. Best practice in primary care pathology: review 2. J Clin Pathol. 2006;59(2):113-120. (Pubitemid 43235573)
49. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein Jl. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer. 1999;86(111:2426-2435.
50. Raab SS, Nakhleh RE, Ruby SG. Patient safety in anatomic pathology: measuring discrepancy frequencies and causes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005; 129(41:459-466.
51. Raab SS, Meier FA, Zarbo RJ, et al. The "Big Dog" effect: variability assessing the causes of error in diagnoses of patients with lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(181:2808-2814.
52. Gupta D, Layfield LJ. Prevalence of inter-institutional anatomic pathology slide review: a survey of current practice. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24(2):280-284. (Pubitemid 30078717)
53. Drogowski LM, Roh EK, Jukic DM. Analysis of diagnostic proficiency in dermatopathology related to magnification and training level. Dermatopathol Pract Concept. 2008,14(2). https://www.derm101.com/indexDPC. Accessed January 29, 2011.
54. Gagnon M, Inhorn S, Hancock J, et al. Comparison of cytology proficiency testing: glass slides vs. virtual slides. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(6):788-794. (Pubitemid 39518257)
55. Wilbur DC, Madi K, Colvin RB, et al. Whole-slide imaging digital pathology as a platform for teleconsultation: a pilot study using paired subspecialist correlations. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(12):1949-1953.