The performance of digital microscopy for primary diagnosis in human pathology: a systematic review
Validation studies of whole slide imaging (WSI) systems produce evidence regarding digital microscopy (DM). This systematic review aimed to provide information about the performance of WSI devices by evaluating intraobserver agreement reported in previously published studies as the best evidence to elucidate whether DM is reliable for primary diagnostic purposes. In addition, this review delineates the reasons for the occurrence of discordant diagnoses. Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Embase were searched electronically. A total of 13 articles were included. The total sample of 2145 had a majority of 695 (32.4%) cases from dermatopathology, followed by 200 (9.3%) cases from gastrointestinal pathology. Intraobserver agreements showed an excellent concordance, with values ranging from 87% to 98.3% (κ coefficient range 0.8–0.98). Ten studies (77%) reported a total of 128 disagreements. The remaining three studies (23%) did not report the exact number and nature of disagreements. Borderline/challenging cases were the most frequently reported reason for disagreements (53.8%). Six authors reported limitations of the equipment and/or limited image resolution as reasons for the discordant diagnoses. Within these articles, the reported pitfalls were as follows: difficulties in the identification of eosinophilic granular bodies in brain biopsies; eosinophils and nucleated red blood cells; and mitotic figures, nuclear details, and chromatin patterns in neuropathology specimens. The lack of image clarity was reported to be associated with difficulties in the identification of microorganisms (e.g., Candida albicans, Helicobacter pylori, and Giardia lamblia). However, authors stated that the intraobserver variances do not derive from technical limitations of WSI. A lack of clinical information was reported by four authors as a source for disagreements. Two studies (15.4%) reported poor quality of the biopsies, specifically small size of the biopsy material or inadequate routine laboratory processes as reasons for disagreements. One author (7.7%) indicated the lack of immunohistochemistry and special stains as a source for discordance. Furthermore, nine studies (69.2%) did not consider the performance of the digital method—limitations of the equipment, insufficient magnification/limited image resolution—as reasons for disagreements. To summarize the pitfalls of digital pathology practice and better address the root cause of the diagnostic discordance, we suggest a Categorization for Digital Pathology Discrepancies to be used in further validations studies. Among 99 discordances, only 37 (37.3%) had preferred diagnosis rendered by means of WSI. The risk of bias and applicability concerns were judged with the QUADAS-2. Two studies (15.4%) presented an unclear risk of bias in the sample selection domain and 2 (15.4%) presented a high risk of bias in the index test domain. Regarding applicability, all studies included were classified as a low concern in all domains. The included studies were optimally designed to validate WSI for general clinical use, providing evidence with confidence. In general, this systematic review showed a high concordance between diagnoses achieved by using WSI and conventional light microscope (CLM), summarizes difficulties related to specific findings of certain areas of pathology—including dermatopathology, pediatric pathology, neuropathology, and gastrointestinal pathology—and demonstrated that WSI can be used to render primary diagnoses in several subspecialties of human pathology.
KeywordsWhole slide imaging Intraobserver agreement Systematic review
All authors had substantial contributions to the conception, draft and design of this work, (Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo, Natália Rangel Palmier, Cristhian Camilo Troconis, Paul M. Speight, Oslei Paes de Almeida, Marcio Ajudarte Lopes and Alan Roger Santos-Silva), as well as participation of the acquisition (Lady Paola Aristizábal Arboleda, Natália Rangel Palmier, Jéssica Montenegro Fonsêca, Mariana de Pauli Paglioni, Ana Carolina Prado Ribeiro, Pablo Agustin Vargas, Luciana Estevam Simonato and Wagner Gomes-Silva), analysis (Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo, Felipe Paiva Fonseca and Lady Paola Aristizábal Arboleda), and interpretation (Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo, Cristhian Camilo Troconis, Thaís Bianca Brandão and Alan Roger Santos-Silva) of data for the work. The final version of this work was reviewed and approved for publication by all parts included. Authors Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo and Alan Roger Santos-Silva takes full responsibility for the work as a whole, including the study design, access to data and the decision to submit and publish the manuscript.
Financial support was received from the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES/PROEX, Brazil), the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Brazil) and the grants from São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, Brazil) process number: 2009/53839-2.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical responsibilities of author section
All authors had substantial contributions to the conception, draft and design of this work, as well as participation of the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data for the work. The final version of this work was approved for publication by all parts included. If there is a need, all authors agreed to be accountable for any aspects of the work and we ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The authors also state that the material is original, has not been published elsewhere, and is being submitted only to the Virchows Archiv.
- 1.Pantanowitz L, Sinard JH, Henricks WH, Fatheree LA, Carter AB, Contis L, Beckwith BA, Evans AJ, Lal A, Parwani AV, College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center (2013) 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 137:1710–1722. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2013-0093-CP CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Koch LH, Lampros JN, Delong LK, Chen SC, Woosley JT, Hood AF (2009) Randomized comparison of virtual microscopy and traditional glass microscopy in diagnostic accuracy among dermatology and pathology residents. Hum Pathol 40:662–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2008.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Food and Drug Administration (2017) FDA allows marketing of first whole slide imaging system for digital pathology. https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm552742.htm. Accessed 16 Mar 2017
- 8.Williams BJ, Hanby A, Millican-Slater R, Nijhawan A, Verghese E, Treanor D (2018) Digital pathology for the primary diagnosis of breast histopathological specimens: an innovative validation and concordance study on digital pathology validation and training. Histopathology 72:662–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) (2017). EPOC Resources for review authors. https://epoc.cochrane.org/resources/epoc-resources-review-authors
- 12.Nielsen PS, Lindebjerg J, Rasmussen J, Starklint H, Waldstrøm M, Nielsen B (2010) Virtual microscopy: an evaluation of its validity and diagnostic performance in routine histologic diagnosis of skin tumors. Hum Pathol 41:1770–1776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2010.05.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Arnold MA, Chenever E, Baker PB, Boué DR, Fung B, Hammond S, Hendrickson BW, Kahwash SB, Pierson CR, Prasad V, Nicol KK, Barr T (2015) The College of American Pathologists Guidelines for whole slide imaging validation are feasible for pediatric pathology: a pediatric pathology practice experience. Pediatr Dev Pathol 18:109–116. https://doi.org/10.2350/14-07-1523-OA.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kent MN, Olsen TG, Feeser TA, Tesno KC, Moad JC, Conroy MP, Kendrick MJ, Stephenson SR, Murchland MR, Khan AU, Peacock EA, Brumfiel A, Bottomley MA (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of virtual pathology vs traditional microscopy in a large dermatopathology study. JAMA Dermatol 153:1285–1291. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.3284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Saco A, Diaz A, Hernandez M, Martinez D, Montironi C, Castillo P, Rakislova N, del Pino M, Martinez A, Ordi J (2017) Validation of whole-slide imaging in the primary diagnosis of liver biopsies in a university hospital. Dig Liver Dis 49:1240–1246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2017.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Tabata K, Mori I, Sasaki T, Itoh T, Shiraishi T, Yoshimi N, Maeda I, Harada O, Taniyama K, Taniyama D, Watanabe M, Mikami Y, Sato S, Kashima Y, Fujimura S, Fukuoka J (2017) Whole-slide imaging at primary pathological diagnosis: validation of whole-slide imaging-based primary pathological diagnosis at twelve Japanese academic institutes. Pathol Int 67:547–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/pin.12590 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Camparo P, Ramirez A, Claude V et al (2009) Whole slide imaging in daily routine examination in a pathologic department: Experience of a military hospital network in Paris. Rev Fr Lab 38:49–55 RFL-01-2008-38-408-1773-035x-101019-200812623Google Scholar
- 27.Gage JC, Joste N, Ronnett BM, Stoler M, Hunt WC, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM (2013) A comparison of cervical histopathology variability using whole slide digitized images versus glass slides: experience with a statewide registry. Hum Pathol 44:2542–2548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2013.06.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Zeitouni J, Jorda M, Reyes C, Nadji M (2012) Validation of whole slide imaging for the first line diagnosis of prostate biopsies. Lab Invest 92:519A–520A. https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.2012.24
- 29.Gerhard R, Honorio A, Gentili A et al (2014) Primary histopathological diagnosis using whole slide imaging (WSI): a validation study. Lab Invest 94:399A. https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.2014.28
- 30.Goodman S, Kandil D, Khan (2014) A Diagnosis of breast needle core biopsies using whole slide imaging. Lab Invest 94:399A. https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.2014.28
- 31.Parimi V, Borys A, Zhou Y et al (2016) Validation of whole frozen section slide image diagnosis in surgical pathology. Lab Invest 96:399A–400A. https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.2016.15
- 38.Wilson I, Treanor D, Williams B (2017) Belfast Pathology 2017. 10th joint meeting of the British division of the international academy of pathology and the pathological Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 20-23 June 2017. J Pathol 243:S1–S41. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.4984 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Lee JJ, Jedrych J, Pantanowitz L (2017) Validation of digital pathology for primary histopathological diagnosis of routine, inflammatory dermatopathology cases 0:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/DAD.0000000000000888
- 43.Krishnamurthy S, Mathews K, McClure S, Murray M, Gilcrease M, Albarracin C, Spinosa J, Chang B, Ho J, Holt J, Cohen A, Giri D, Garg K, Bassett RL Jr, Liang K (2013) Multi-institutional comparison of whole slide digital imaging and optical microscopy for interpretation of hematoxylin-eosin-stained breast tissue sections. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137:1733–1739. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2012-0437-OA CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Brunelli M, Beccari S, Colombari R et al (2014) 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 9(Suppl 1):S12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-9-S1-S12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 49.Snead DRJ, Tsang YW, Meskiri A, Kimani PK, Crossman R, Rajpoot NM, Blessing E, Chen K, Gopalakrishnan K, Matthews P, Momtahan N, Read-Jones S, Sah S, Simmons E, Sinha B, Suortamo S, Yeo Y, el Daly H, Cree IA (2016) Validation of digital pathology imaging for primary histopathological diagnosis. Histopathology 68:1063–1072. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12879 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 53.Mills AM, Gradecki SE, Horton BJ et al (2018) Diagnostic Efficiency in Digital Pathology: A Comparison of Optical Versus Digital Assessment in 510 Surgical Pathology Cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 42(1):53–59. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000930
- 58.Mukhopadhyay S, Feldman MD, Abels E, Ashfaq R, Beltaifa S, Cacciabeve NG, Cathro HP, Cheng L, Cooper K, Dickey GE, Gill RM, Heaton RP Jr, Kerstens R, Lindberg GM, Malhotra RK, Mandell JW, Manlucu ED, Mills AM, Mills SE, Moskaluk CA, Nelis M, Patil DT, Przybycin CG, Reynolds JP, Rubin BP, Saboorian MH, Salicru M, Samols MA, Sturgis CD, Turner KO, Wick MR, Yoon JY, Zhao P, Taylor CR (2017) Whole slide imaging versus microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 42:1. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000948 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 62.Araújo ALD, Amaral-Silva GK, Fonseca FP, Palmier NR, Lopes MA, Speight PM, de Almeida OP, Vargas PA, Santos-Silva AR (2018) Validation of digital microscopy in the histopathological diagnoses of oral diseases. Virchows Arch 473:321–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-018-2382-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 63.Sanders DSA, Grabsch H, Harrison R, Bateman A, Going J, Goldin R, Mapstone N, Novelli M, Walker MM, Jankowski J, on behalf of the AspECT trial management group and trial principal investigators (2012) Comparing virtual with conventional microscopy for the consensus diagnosis of Barrett’s neoplasia in the AspECT Barrett’s chemoprevention trial pathology audit. Histopathology 61:795–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2012.04288.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 69.Särndal C-E (2003) Stratified sampling. In: Model Assisted Survey Sampling. Springer, pp 100–109Google Scholar