Use of Digital Whole Slide Imaging in Dermatopathology

Journal of Digital Imaging

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 243-253

  Onega, Tracy ^a,b   Reisch, Lisa M ^c   Frederick, Paul D ^c   Geller, Berta M ^d   Nelson, Heidi D ^e   Lott, Jason P ^f   Radick, Andrea C ^c   Elder, David E ^g   Barnhill, Raymond L ^h,i   Piepkorn, Michael W ^j,k   Elmore, Joann G ^c  

^a NORRIS COTTON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^h INSTITUT CURIE   (France)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^k Dermatopathology Northwest   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Dermatopathology; Digital whole slide imaging; Melanocytic lesions

Indexed keywords

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSIS; HOSPITALS; SURVEYS;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DERMATOPATHOLOGY; DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS; DIGITAL SLIDES; EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES; MELANOCYTIC LESION; WHOLE SLIDE IMAGING (WSI);

COMPUTER GRAPHICS;

COMPUTER INTERFACE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; MEDULLOBLASTOMA; MICROSCOPY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; SKIN; STANDARDS;

HUMANS; MEDULLOBLASTOMA; MICROSCOPY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; SKIN; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84961056181     PISSN: 08971889     EISSN: 1618727X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-015-9836-y     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Pantanowitz L, Valenstein PN, Evans AJ, et al: Review of the current state of whole slide imaging in pathology. J Pathol Inform 2:36, 2011
2. Pantowitz L, Hornish M, Goulart RA: The impact of digital imaging in the field of cytopathology. Cytojournal 6:6, 2009
3. Wilbur DC: Digital cytology: current state of the art and prospects for the future. Acta Cytol 55:227–238, 2011
4. Velez N, Jukic D, Ho J: Evaluation of two whole-slide imaging applications in dermatopathology. Hum Pathol 39:1341–1349, 2008
5. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Vink A, Leguit J, Offerhaus GJA, ten Kate JFW, van Dijk R, van Diest PJ: Whole slide images for primary diagnostics in dermatopathology: a feasibility study. J Clin Pathol 65:152–158, 2012
6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/ClassifyYourDevice/. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
7. Brick KE, Comfere NI, Broeren MD, Gibson LE, Wieland CN: The application of virtual microscopy in a dermatopathology educational setting: assessment of attitudes among dermatopathologists. Int J Dermatol 53:224–227, 2014. doi:10.1111/ijd.12233
8. Leong FJ, McGee JO: Automated complete slide digitization: a medium for simultaneous viewing by multiple pathologists. J Pathol 195:508–514, 2001
9. Mooney E, Hood AF, Lampros J, et al: Comparative diagnostic accuracy in virtual dermatopathology. Skin Res Technol 17:251–255, 2011
10. Mooney E, Kempf W, Jemec GBE, Koch L, Hood A: Diagnostic accuracy in virtual dermatopathology. J Cutan Pathol 39:758–761, 2012
11. Bruch LA, De Young BR, Kreiter CD, et al: Competency assessment of residents in surgical pathology using virtual microscopy. Hum Pathol 40:1122–1128, 2009
12. Brick KE, Sluzevich JC, Cappel MA, et al: Comparison of virtual microscopy and glass slide microscopy during a simulated in-training examination. American Society of Dermatopathology 49th Annua Meeting, October 11–14, 2012, Chicago, IL
13. Leinweber B, Massone C, Kodama K, et al: Teledermatopathology: a controlled study about diagnostic validity and technical requirements for digital transmission. Am J Dermatopathol 28:413–416, 2006
14. Zembowicz A, Ahmad A, Lyle SR: A comprehensive analysis of a web-based dermatopathology second opinion consultation practice. Arch Pathol Lab Med 135:379–383, 2011
15. Okada DH, Binder SW, Felten CL, Strauss JS, Marchevsky AM: “Virtual microscopy” and the internet as telepathology consultation tools: diagnostic accuracy in evaluating melanocytic skin lesions. Am J Dermatopathol 21:525, 1999
16. Koch LH, Lampros JN, Delong LK, et al: Randomized comparison of virtual microscopy and traditional glass microscopy in diagnostic accuracy among dermatology and pathology residents. Hum Pathol 40:662–667, 2009
17. Wong SL, Balch CM, Hurley P, Agarwala SS, Akhurst TJ, Cochran A, et al: Sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology joint clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 30(23):2912–2918, 2012. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.40.3519
18. Wong SL, Balch CM, Hurley P, Agarwala SS, Akhurst TJ, Cochran A, et al: Sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology joint clinical practice guideline. Ann Surg Oncol 19(11):3313–3324, 2012. doi:10.1245/s10434-012-2475-3
19. Direct Medical Data, LLC. http://www.dmddata.com/data_lists_physicians.asp. Accessed 1 Jun 2015
20. Willis, Gordon B: Cognitive Interviewing: A “How To” Guide. In Meeting of the American Statistical Association. 1999
21. Cornish TC, Swapp RE, Kaplan KJ: Whole-slide imaging: routine pathologic diagnosis. Adv Anat Pathol 19:152–159, 2012
22. Elmore JG. Accuracy in the diagnosis of melanoma and the impact of double reading. Baseline Survey. http://sph.washington.edu/faculty/fac_bio.asp?url_ID=Elmore_Joann. 2015. Accessed 1 Jun 2015
23. Ghaznavi F, Evans A, Madabhushni A, Feldman M: Digital imaging in pathology: whole-slide imaging and beyond. Annu Rev Pathol Mech Dis 8:331–359, 2013
24. Henricks WH: Evaluation of whole slide imaging for routine surgical pathology: looking through a broader scope. J Pathol Inform 3:39, 2012
25. Cerroni L, Barnhill R, Elder D, Gottlieb G, Heenan P, Kutzner H, LeBoit PE, Mihm M, Jr., Rosai J, Kerl H: Melanocytic tumors of uncertain malignant potential (MELTUMPs): Results of a Tutorial held at the XXIX Symposium of the International Society of Dermatopathology in Graz, October 2008. Am J Surg Pathol 34(3):314–326, 2010
26. Hashimoto N, Bautista PA, Yamaguchi M, Ohyama N, Yagi Y: Referenceless image quality evaluation for whole slide imaging. J Pathol Inform 3:9, 2012
27. Ho J, Parwani AV, Jukic CM, et al: Use of whole slide imaging in surgical pathology quality assurance: design and pilot validation studies. Hum Pathol 37:322–331, 2006
28. Campbell WS, Lele SM, West WW, Lazenby AJ, Smith LM, Hinrichs SH: Concordance between whole-slide imaging and light microscopy for routine surgical pathology. Hum Pathol 43:1739–1744, 2012
29. Reyes C, Ikpatt OF, Nadji M, Cote RJ: Intra-observer reproducibility of whole slide imaging for the primary diagnosis of breast needle biopsies. J Pathol Inform 1–5, 2014. 10.4103/2153-3539.127814
30. Cann J, Chlipala E, Ellin J, Kawano Y, Knight B, Long RE, Lowe A, Machotka SV, Smith A: Validation of digital pathology systems in the regulated nonclinical environment. Digital Pathology Association white paper. 2011, https://digitalpathologyassociation.org/white-papers_1
31. Onega T, Weaver D, Geller B, Oster N, Tosteson ANA, Carney PA, Nelson H, Allison KH, Elmore JE: Digitized whole slides for breast pathology interpretation: current practices and perceptions. J Digit Imaging, 2014. doi:10.1007/s10278-014-9683-2
32. Mea VD, Demichelis F, Viel F, Palma PD, Betlrami CA: User attitudes in analyzing digital slides in a quality control test bed: a preliminary study. Comput Methods Prog Biomed 82:177–186, 2006
33. Bellis M, Metias S, Naugler C, Pollett A, Jothy S, Yousef GM: Digital pathology: attitudes and practices in the Canadian pathology community. J Pathol Inform 4:3, 2013. doi:10.4103/2153-3539.108540. Print 2013