The diagnostic concordance of whole slide imaging and light microscopy: A systematic review

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 141, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 151-161

  Goacher, Edward ^a   Randell, Rebecca ^b   Williams, Bethany ^a   Treanor, Darren ^a  

^a LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COCHRANE LIBRARY; DIAGNOSIS; EMBASE; ENGLAND; HUMAN; ILLINOIS; IMAGING; MEDLINE; MICROSCOPY; NETHERLANDS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VALIDATION STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DEVICES; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MICROSCOPY; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 85008318908     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0025-RA     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (69)

1. Ghaznavi F, Evans A, Madabhushi A, Feldman M. Digital imaging in pathology: whole-slide imaging and beyond. Annu Rev Pathol. 2013;8:331-359.
2. Weinstein RS, Graham AR, Lian F, et al. Reconciliation of diverse telepathology system designs. Historic issues and implications for emerging markets and new applications. APMIS. 2012;120(4):256-275.
3. Weinstein RS, Descour MR, Liang C, et al. Telepathology overview: from concept to implementation. Hum Pathol. 2001;32(12):1283-1299.
4. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Van Diest PJ. Digital pathology: current status and future perspectives. Histopathology. 2012;61(1):1-9.
5. Gilbertson J, Yagi Y. Histology, imaging and new diagnostic work-flows in pathology. Diagn Pathol. 2008;3(suppl 1):S14.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Rojo MG, Garcia GB, Mateos CP, Garcia JG, Vicente MC. Critical comparison of 31 commercially available digital slide systems in pathology. Int J Surg Pathol. 2006;14(4):285-305.
9. Hedvat CV. Digital microscopy: past, present, and future. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(11):1666-1670.
10. Taylor CR. From microscopy to whole slide digital images: A century and a half of image analysis. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2011;19(6):491-493.
11. Huisman A, Looijen A, van den Brink SM, van Diest PJ. Creation of a fully digital pathology slide archive by high-volume tissue slide scanning. Hum Pathol. 2010;41(5):751-757.
12. Ayad E, Yagi Y. Virtual microscopy beyond the pyramids, applications of WSI in Cairo University for e-education & telepathology. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst). 2011;35(2):93-95.
13. Pantanowitz L, Szymas J, Yagi Y, Wilbur D. Whole slide imaging for educational purposes. J Pathol Inform 2012;3:46.
14. Romero Lauro G, Cable W, Lesniak A, et al. Digital pathology consultations-A new era in digital imaging, challenges and practical applications. J Digit Imaging. 2013;26(4):668-677.
15. Brick KE, Sluzevich JC, Cappel MA, DiCaudo DJ, Comfere NI, Wieland CN. Comparison of virtual microscopy and glass slide microscopy among dermatology residents during a simulated in-training examination. J Cutan Pathol. 2013;40(9):807-811.
16. Hanna MG, Pantanowitz L, Evans AJ. Overview of contemporary guidelines in digital pathology: what is available in 2015 and what still needs to be addressed J Clin Pathol. 2015;68(7):499-505.
17. Faison T. FDA regulation of whole slide imaging (WSI) devices: current thoughts. ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/CLIAC-meeting-presentations/pdf/Addenda/cliac0212/Tab-15-Faison-CLIAC-2012Feb14-Whole-Slide-Imaging.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2015.
18. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Jonges GN, ten Kate FJW, Goldschmeding R, van Diest PJ. Whole slide images for primary diagnostics of urinary system pathology: A feasibility study. J Renal Inj Prev. 2014;3(4):91-96.
19. Association DP. DPA Recommends whole slide imaging manufacturers submit de novo applications to the FDA for primary diagnosis in the United States. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2016/01/prweb13163307.htm. Accessed February 29, 2016.
20. Lindsk öld L, Samuelsson B, Carlberg I, et al. Diagnostic agreement of digital whole slide imaging and routine light microscopy. Göteborg, Sweden: Regional Health Technology Assessment Centre (HTA-centrum). HTA-rapport 2012:54.
21. Pantanowitz L, Sinard JH, Henricks WH, et al. Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(12):1710-1722.
22. University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. About PROSPERO. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. Accessed April 17, 2015.
23. Goacher E, Randell R, Treanor D. The diagnostic accuracy of digital microscopy: A systematic review protocol. PROSPERO: international prospective register of systematic reviews. 2015: CRD42015017859. http://www.crd.york.ac. uk/PROSPEROFILES/17859-PROTOCOL-20150313.pdf. Published January 2015. Accessed January 2, 2015.
24. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174.
25. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-536.
26. Reitsma JB, Rutjes AWS, Whiting P, Vlassov VV, Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Version 1.0.0. London, England: Cochrane Collaboration; 2009.
27. Ryan R; Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group reviews: metaanalysis. http://cccrg.cochrane.org/sites/cccrg.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Metaanalysis. pdf. Published June 2013. Accessed January 5, 2015.
28. Campbell WS, Hinrichs SH, Lele SM, et al. Whole slide imaging diagnostic concordance with light microscopy for breast needle biopsies. Hum Pathol. 2014;45(8):1713-1721.
29. Buck TP, Dilorio R, Havrilla L, O'Neill DG. Validation of a whole slide imaging system for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology: A community hospital experience. J Pathol Inform. 2014;5(1):43.
30. Al Habeeb A, Evans A, Ghazarian D. Virtual microscopy using whole-slide imaging as an enabler for teledermatopathology: A paired consultant validation study. J Pathol Inform. 2012;3(1):2.
31. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Vink A, et al. Whole slide images for primary diagnostics of gastrointestinal tract pathology: A feasibility study. Hum Pathol. 2012;43(5):702-707.
32. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Vink A, et al. Whole slide images for primary diagnostics in dermatopathology: A feasibility study. J Clin Pathol. 2012;65(2): 152-158.
33. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Willems SM, Van Diest PJ. Digital slide images for primary diagnostics in breast pathology: A feasibility study. Hum Pathol. 2012; 43(12):2318-2325.
34. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Nikkels PG, ten Kate FJ, van Diest PJ. Whole slide images for primary diagnostics of paediatric pathology specimens: A feasibility study. J Clin Pathol. 2013;66(3):218-223.
35. Arnold MA, Chenever E, Baker PB, et al. The College of American Pathologists guidelines for whole slide imaging validation are feasible for pediatric pathology: A pediatric pathology practice experience. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2015;18(2):109-116.
36. Bauer TW, Schoenfield L, Slaw RJ, Yerian L, Sun Z, Henricks WH. Validation of whole slide imaging for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(4):518-524.
37. Bauer TW, Slaw RJ. Validating whole-slide imaging for consultation diagnoses in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(11):1459-1465.
38. Brunelli M, Beccari S, Colombari R, et al. iPathology cockpit diagnostic station: validation according to College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center recommendation at the Hospital Trust and University of Verona. Diagn Pathol. 2014;9(suppl 1):S12.
39. 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. 2012;43(10):1739-1744.
40. Chargari C, Comperat E, Magne N, et al. Prostate needle biopsy examination by means of virtual microscopy. Pathol Res Pract. 2011;207(6): 366-369.
41. Fónyad L, Krenacs T, Nagy P, et al. Validation of diagnostic accuracy using digital slides in routine histopathology. Diagn Pathol. 2012;7:35.
42. Gage JC, Joste N, Ronnett BM, et al. A comparison of cervical histopathology variability using whole slide digitized images versus glass slides: experience with a statewide registry. Hum Pathol. 2013;44(11):2542-2548.
43. Gui D, Cortina G, Naini B, et al. Diagnosis of dysplasia in upper gastrointestinal tract biopsies through digital microscopy. J Pathol Inform. 2012;3:27.
44. Houghton JP, Ervine AJ, Kenny SL, et al. Concordance between digital pathology and light microscopy in general surgical pathology: A pilot study of 100 cases. J Clin Pathol. 2014;67(12):1052-1055.
45. Jen KY, Olson JL, Brodsky S, Zhou XJ, Nadasdy T, Laszik ZG. Reliability of whole slide images as a diagnostic modality for renal allograft biopsies. Hum Pathol. 2013;44(5):888-894.
46. 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(3):372-378.
47. Krishnamurthy S, Mathews K, McClure S, et al. Multi-institutional comparison of whole slide digital imaging and optical microscopy for interpretation of hematoxylin-eosin-stained breast tissue sections. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(12):1733-1739.
48. Mooney E, Hood AF, Lampros J, Kempf W, Jemec GB. Comparative diagnostic accuracy in virtual dermatopathology. Skin Res Technol. 2011;17(7): 251-255.
49. Nielsen PS, Lindebjerg J, Rasmussen J, Starklint H, Waldstrom M, Nielsen B. Virtual microscopy: an evaluation of its validity and diagnostic performance in routine histologic diagnosis of skin tumors. Hum Pathol. 2010;41(12):1770-1776.
50. Ordi J, Castillo P, Saco A, et al. Validation of whole slide imaging in the primary diagnosis of gynaecological pathology in a university hospital. J Clin Pathol. 2015;68(1):33-39.
51. Ozluk Y, Blanco PL, Mengel M, Solez K, Halloran PF, Sis B. Superiority of virtual microscopy versus light microscopy in transplantation pathology. Clin Transplant. 2012;26(2):336-344.
52. 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. 2014;5(1):5.
53. Risio M, Bussolati G, Senore C, et al. Virtual microscopy for histology quality assurance of screen-detected polyps. J Clin Pathol. 2010;63(10):916-920.
54. Rodriguez-Urrego PA, Cronin AM, Al-Ahmadie HA, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility in digital and routine microscopic assessment of prostate needle biopsies. Hum Pathol. 2011;42(1):68-74.
55. Sanders DS, Grabsch H, Harrison R, et al; AspECT Trial Management Group and Trial Principal Investigators. Comparing virtual with conventional microscopy for the consensus diagnosis of Barrett's neoplasia in the AspECT Barrett's chemoprevention trial pathology audit. Histopathology. 2012;61(5):795-800.
56. Shaw EC, Hanby AM, Wheeler K, et al. Observer agreement comparing the use of virtual slides with glass slides in the pathology review component of the POSH breast cancer cohort study. J Clin Pathol. 2012;65(5):403-408.
57. van der Post RS, van der Laak JAWM, Sturm B, et al. The evaluation of colon biopsies using virtual microscopy is reliable. Histopathology. 2013;63(1): 114-121.
58. Velez N, Jukic D, Ho J. Evaluation of 2 whole-slide imaging applications in dermatopathology. Hum Pathol. 2008;39(9):1341-1349.
59. Wendum D, Lacombe K, Chevallier M, et al. Histological scoring of fibrosis and activity in HIV-chronic hepatitis B related liver disease: performance of the METAVIR score assessed on virtual slides. J Clin Pathol. 2009;62(4):361-363.
60. 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.
61. Whiting P, Rutjes A, Reitsma J, Bossuyt P, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: A tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3(1):1-13.
62. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PG-preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
63. BMJ Clinical Evidence. What is GRADE http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/set/static/ebm/learn/665072.html. Accessed April 10, 2015.
64. Higgins JPT GS. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Vol 5.1.0. London, England: Cochrane Collaboration; 2013.
65. Randell R, Ruddle RA, Thomas RG, Mello-Thoms C, Treanor D. Diagnosis of major cancer resection specimens with virtual slides: impact of a novel digital pathology workstation. Hum Pathol. 2014;45(10):2101-2106.
66. Treanor D, Quirke P. The virtual slide and conventional microscope-A direct comparison of their diagnostic efficiency. J Pathol. 2007;213(suppl 1):7a.
67. Campbell WS, Talmon GA, Foster KW, Baker JJ, Smith LM, Hinrichs SH. Visual memory effects on intraoperator study design: determining a minimum time gap between case reviews to reduce recall bias. Am J Clin Pathol. 2015; 143(3):412-418.
68. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Developing Medical Imaging Drug and Biological Products. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2004.
69. Whiting P. Resources. University of Bristol QUADAS Web site. http://www. bris.ac.uk/quadas/resources/. Accessed April 10, 2015.