Superiority of virtual microscopy versus light microscopy in transplantation pathology

Clinical Transplantation

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 336-344

  Ozluk, Yasemin ^a,b   Blanco, Paula L ^a   Mengel, Michael ^a,c   Solez, Kim ^a   Halloran, Philip F ^a,c   Sis, Banu ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Allograft; Banff classification; Digital slides; Kidney; Pathology; Transplantation; Virtual microscopy; Virtual slides

Indexed keywords

ACUTE GRAFT REJECTION; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; GLOMERULOPATHY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; KIDNEY BIOPSY; KIDNEY GRAFT; KIDNEY GRAFT REJECTION; MALE; MICROSCOPY; PATHOLOGIST; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; VIRTUAL MICROSCOPY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY; FEMALE; GRAFT REJECTION; HUMANS; KIDNEY; KIDNEY DISEASES; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MICROSCOPY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84859826036     PISSN: 09020063     EISSN: 13990012     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2011.01506.x     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Siegel EL, Reiner BI, Siddiqui KM. Ten filmless years and ten lessons: a 10th-anniversary retrospective from the Baltimore VA Medical Center. J Am Coll Radiol 2004: 1: 824.
2. Afework A, Beynon MD, Bustamante F et al. Digital dynamic telepathology - the Virtual Microscope. Proc AMIA Symp 1998: 912.
3. Glatz-Krieger K, Spornitz U, Spatz A, Mihatsch MJ, Glatz D. Factors to keep in mind when introducing virtual microscopy. Virchows Arch 2006: 448: 248.
4. Krippendorf BB, Lough J. Complete and rapid switch from light microscopy to virtual microscopy for teaching medical histology. Anat Rec B New Anat 2005: 285: 19.
5. 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: 322.
6. Furness P. A randomized controlled trial of the diagnostic accuracy of internet-based telepathology compared with conventional microscopy. Histopathology 2007: 50: 266.
7. Tsuchihashi Y, Takamatsu T, Hashimoto Y, Takashima T, Nakano K, Fujita S. Use of virtual slide system for quick frozen intra-operative telepathology diagnosis in Kyoto, Japan. Diagn Pathol 2008: 3(Suppl 1): S6.
8. Mencarelli R, Marcolongo A, Gasparetto A. Organizational model for a telepathology system. Diagn Pathol 2008: 3(Suppl 1): S7.
9. Einecke G, Fairhead T, Hidalgo LG et al. Tubulitis and epithelial cell alterations in mouse kidney transplant rejection are independent of CD103, Perforin or Granzymes A/B. Am J Transplant 2006: 6: 2109.
10. Mengel M, Reeve J, Bunnag S et al. Scoring total inflammation is superior to the current Banff inflammation score in predicting outcome and the degree of molecular disturbance in renal allografts. Am J Transplant 2009: 9: 1859.
11. Grabe N, Lahrmann B, Pommerencke T, Von Knebel DM, Reuschenbach M, Wentzensen N. A virtual microscopy system to scan, evaluate and archive biomarker enhanced cervical cytology slides. Cell Oncol 2010: 32: 109.
12. Xing Y, Chaudry Q, Shen C et al. Bioconjugated quantum dots for multiplexed and quantitative immunohistochemistry. Nat Protoc 2007: 2: 1152.
13. Isse K, Grama K, Abbott IM et al. Adding value to liver (and allograft) biopsy evaluation using a combination of multiplex quantum dot immunostaining, high-resolution whole-slide digital imaging, and automated image analysis. Clin Liver Dis 2010: 14: 669.
14. Sis B, Mengel M, Haas M et al. Banff '09 Meeting Report: antibody mediated graft deterioration and implementation of Banff Working Groups. Am J Transplant 2010: 10: 464.
15. Sis B, Einecke G, Chang J et al. Cluster analysis of lesions in kidney transplant biopsies: microcirculation changes, tubulointerstitial inflammation, and scarring. Am J Transplant 2010: 10: 421.
16. Sis B, Dadras F, Khoshjou F, Cockfield S, Mihatsch MJ, Solez K. Reproducibility studies on arteriolar hyaline thickening scoring in calcineurin inhibitor-treated renal allograft recipients. Am J Transplant 2006: 6: 1444.
17. Silcocks PB. Measuring repeatability and validity of histological diagnosis - a brief review with some practical examples. J Clin Pathol 1983: 36: 1269.
18. Furness PN, Taub N, Assmann KJ et al. International variation in histologic grading is large, and persistent feedback does not improve reproducibility. Am J Surg Pathol 2003: 27: 805.
19. Evered A, Dudding N. Accuracy and perceptions of virtual microscopy compared with glass slide microscopy in cervical cytology. Cytopathology 2010: May 17. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2010.00758.x. [Epub ahead of print].
20. Koch LH, Lampros JN, Delong LK, Chen SC, Woosley JT, Hood AF. Randomized comparison of virtual microscopy and traditional glass microscopy in diagnostic accuracy among dermatology and pathology residents. Hum Pathol 2009: 40: 662.
21. Fallon MA, Wilbur DC, Prasad M. Ovarian frozen section diagnosis of whole-slide imaging shows excellent correlation between virtual slide and original interpretations in a large series of cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010: 134: 1020.
22. Marcussen N, Olsen TS, Benediktsson H, Racusen L, Solez K. Reproducibility of the Banff classification of renal allograft pathology. Inter- and intraobserver variation. Transplantation 1995: 60: 1083.
23. Solez K, Hansen HE, Kornerup HJ et al. Clinical validation and reproducibility of the Banff schema for renal allograft pathology. Transplant Proc 1995: 27: 1009.
24. 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: 259.