The evaluation of colon biopsies using virtual microscopy is reliable

Histopathology

Volumn 63, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 114-121

  Van der Post, Rachel S ^a   Van der Laak, Jeroen A W M ^a   Sturm, Bart ^a   Clarijs, Ruud ^b   Schaafsma, H Ewout ^a   Van Krieken, J Han J M ^a   Nap, Marius ^b  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Zuyderland Medical Centre   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Colon biopsy; Digital slides; Interobserver studies; Virtual microscopy; Whole slide imaging

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COLITIS; COLLAGENOUS COLITIS; COLON ADENOCARCINOMA; COLON ADENOMA; COLON BIOPSY; COLON POLYP; COLON POLYPOSIS; CONSENSUS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIGITAL IMAGING; DISEASE SEVERITY; DYSPLASIA; ENTERITIS; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; HYPERPLASTIC POLYP; HYPERPLASTIC POLYPS; INDETERMINATE COLITIS; INFLAMMATORY POLYP; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; ISCHEMIC COLITIS; LIPOMA; LYMPHOCYTIC COLITIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MICROSCOPY; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESIDENT; TISSUE SECTION; TUBULOVILLOUS ADENOMA; ULCERATIVE COLITIS; VALIDITY; VILLOUS ADENOMA; VIRTUAL MICROSCOPY;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADENOMA; BIOPSY; COLON; COLONIC NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; MICROSCOPY; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84879462821     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: 13652559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/his.12131     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Pantanowitz L, Valenstein PN, Evans AJ et al. Review of the current state of whole slide imaging in pathology. J. Pathol. Inform. 2011; 2; 36.
2. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Vink A et al. Whole slide images for primary diagnostics of gastrointestinal tract pathology: a feasibility study. Hum. Pathol. 2012a; 43; 702-707.
3. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Van Diest PJ. Digital pathology: current status and future perspectives. Histopathology 2012b; 61; 1-9.
4. 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; 1949-1953.
5. Alli PM, Ollayos CW, Thompson LD et al. Telecytology: intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of cervical-vaginal smears. Hum. Pathol. 2001; 32; 1318-1322.
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; 1303-1314.
7. Costello SS, Johnston DJ, Dervan PA, O'Shea DG. Development and evaluation of the virtual pathology slide: a new tool in telepathology. J. Med. Internet Res. 2003; 5; e11.
8. Molnar B, Berczi L, Diczhazy C et al. Digital slide and virtual microscopy based routine and telepathology evaluation of routine gastrointestinal biopsy specimens. J. Clin. Pathol. 2003; 56; 433-438.
9. Nielsen PS, Lindebjerg J, Rasmussen J et al. Virtual microscopy: an evaluation of its validity and diagnostic performance in routine histologic diagnosis of skin tumors. Hum. Pathol. 2010; 41; 1770-1776.
10. Mooney E, Hood AF, Lampros J, Kempf W, Jemec GB. Comparative diagnostic accuracy in virtual dermatopathology. Skin Res. Technol. 2011; 17; 251-255.
11. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Vink A et al. Whole slide images for primary diagnostics in dermatopathology: a feasibility study. J. Clin. Pathol. 2012c; 65; 152-158.
12. Slodkowska J, Chyczewski L, Wojciechowski M. Virtual slides: application in pulmonary pathology consultations. Fol. Histochemic. Cytobiol. 2008; 46; 121-124.
13. Fine JL, Grzybicki DM, Silowash R et al. Evaluation of whole slide image immunohistochemistry interpretation in challenging prostate needle biopsies. Hum. Pathol. 2008; 39; 564-572.
14. Li X, Liu J, Xu H et al. A feasibility study of virtual slides in surgical pathology in China. Hum. Pathol. 2007; 38; 1842-1848.
15. Jukic DM, Drogowski LM, Martina J, Parwani AV. Clinical examination and validation of primary diagnosis in anatomic pathology using whole slide digital images. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2011; 135; 372-378.
16. Gilbertson JR, Ho J, Anthony L et al. Primary histologic diagnosis using automated whole slide imaging: a validation study. BMC Clin. Pathol. 2006; 6; 4.
17. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33; 159-174.
18. Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys. Ther. 2005; 85; 257-268.
19. Grant JM. The fetal heart rate trace is normal, isn't it? Observer agreement of categorical assessments. Lancet 1991; 337; 215-218.
20. Lowe A. Part 1: An update on the FDA's regulation of digital pathology. http://digitalpathologyconsultants.com/DPCblog/2011/11/09/part-1-an-update-on-the-fdas-regulation-of-digital-pathology. 2012. Accessed: 19 July 2012.
21. Brown LJ, Smeeton NC, Dixon MF. Assessment of dysplasia in colorectal adenomas: an observer variation and morphometric study. J. Clin. Pathol. 1985; 38; 174-179.
22. Jensen P, Krogsgaard MR, Christiansen J et al. Observer variability in the assessment of type and dysplasia of colorectal adenomas, analyzed using kappa statistics. Dis. Colon Rectum 1995; 38; 195-198.
23. Guindi M, Riddell RH. The pathology of epithelial pre-malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2001; 15; 191-210.
24. Eaden J, Abrams K, McKay H, Denley H, Mayberry J. Inter-observer variation between general and specialist gastrointestinal pathologists when grading dysplasia in ulcerative colitis. J. Pathol. 2001; 194; 152-157.
25. Odze RD, Tomaszewski JE, Furth EE et al. Variability in the diagnosis of dysplasia in ulcerative colitis by dynamic telepathology. Oncol. Rep. 2006; 16; 1123-1129.
26. Gui D, Cortina G, Naini B et al. Diagnosis of dysplasia in upper gastro-intestinal tract biopsies through digital microscopy. J. Pathol. Inform. 2012; 3; 27.
27. Risio M, Bussolati G, Senore C et al. Virtual microscopy for histology quality assurance of screen-detected polyps. J. Clin. Pathol. 2010; 63; 916-920.