Cargando…
Department Wide Validation in Digital Pathology—Experience from an Academic Teaching Hospital Using the UK Royal College of Pathologists’ Guidance
Aim: we describe our experience of validating departmental pathologists for digital pathology reporting, based on the UK Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) “Best Practice Recommendations for Implementing Digital Pathology (DP),” at a large academic teaching hospital that scans 100% of its surgic...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10341191/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37443538 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13132144 |
_version_ | 1785072203512938496 |
---|---|
author | Kelleher, Mai Colling, Richard Browning, Lisa Roskell, Derek Roberts-Gant, Sharon Shah, Ketan A. Hemsworth, Helen White, Kieron Rees, Gabrielle Dolton, Monica Soares, Maria Fernanda Verrill, Clare |
author_facet | Kelleher, Mai Colling, Richard Browning, Lisa Roskell, Derek Roberts-Gant, Sharon Shah, Ketan A. Hemsworth, Helen White, Kieron Rees, Gabrielle Dolton, Monica Soares, Maria Fernanda Verrill, Clare |
author_sort | Kelleher, Mai |
collection | PubMed |
description | Aim: we describe our experience of validating departmental pathologists for digital pathology reporting, based on the UK Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) “Best Practice Recommendations for Implementing Digital Pathology (DP),” at a large academic teaching hospital that scans 100% of its surgical workload. We focus on Stage 2 of validation (prospective experience) prior to full validation sign-off. Methods and results: twenty histopathologists completed Stage 1 of the validation process and subsequently completed Stage 2 validation, prospectively reporting a total of 3777 cases covering eight specialities. All cases were initially viewed on digital whole slide images (WSI) with relevant parameters checked on glass slides, and discordances were reconciled before the case was signed out. Pathologists kept an electronic log of the cases, the preferred reporting modality used, and their experiences. At the end of each validation, a summary was compiled and reviewed with a mentor. This was submitted to the DP Steering Group who assessed the scope of cases and experience before sign-off for full validation. A total of 1.3% (49/3777) of the cases had a discordance between WSI and glass slides. A total of 61% (30/49) of the discordances were categorised as a minor error in a supplementary parameter without clinical impact. The most common reasons for diagnostic discordances across specialities included identification and grading of dysplasia, assessment of tumour invasion, identification of small prognostic or diagnostic objects, interpretation of immunohistochemistry/special stains, and mitotic count assessment. Pathologists showed similar mean diagnostic confidences (on Likert scale from 0 to 7) with a mean of 6.8 on digital and 6.9 on glass slide reporting. Conclusion: we describe one of the first real-world experiences of a department-wide effort to implement, validate, and roll out digital pathology reporting by applying the RCPath Recommendations for Implementing DP. We have shown a very low rate of discordance between WSI and glass slides. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10341191 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103411912023-07-14 Department Wide Validation in Digital Pathology—Experience from an Academic Teaching Hospital Using the UK Royal College of Pathologists’ Guidance Kelleher, Mai Colling, Richard Browning, Lisa Roskell, Derek Roberts-Gant, Sharon Shah, Ketan A. Hemsworth, Helen White, Kieron Rees, Gabrielle Dolton, Monica Soares, Maria Fernanda Verrill, Clare Diagnostics (Basel) Article Aim: we describe our experience of validating departmental pathologists for digital pathology reporting, based on the UK Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) “Best Practice Recommendations for Implementing Digital Pathology (DP),” at a large academic teaching hospital that scans 100% of its surgical workload. We focus on Stage 2 of validation (prospective experience) prior to full validation sign-off. Methods and results: twenty histopathologists completed Stage 1 of the validation process and subsequently completed Stage 2 validation, prospectively reporting a total of 3777 cases covering eight specialities. All cases were initially viewed on digital whole slide images (WSI) with relevant parameters checked on glass slides, and discordances were reconciled before the case was signed out. Pathologists kept an electronic log of the cases, the preferred reporting modality used, and their experiences. At the end of each validation, a summary was compiled and reviewed with a mentor. This was submitted to the DP Steering Group who assessed the scope of cases and experience before sign-off for full validation. A total of 1.3% (49/3777) of the cases had a discordance between WSI and glass slides. A total of 61% (30/49) of the discordances were categorised as a minor error in a supplementary parameter without clinical impact. The most common reasons for diagnostic discordances across specialities included identification and grading of dysplasia, assessment of tumour invasion, identification of small prognostic or diagnostic objects, interpretation of immunohistochemistry/special stains, and mitotic count assessment. Pathologists showed similar mean diagnostic confidences (on Likert scale from 0 to 7) with a mean of 6.8 on digital and 6.9 on glass slide reporting. Conclusion: we describe one of the first real-world experiences of a department-wide effort to implement, validate, and roll out digital pathology reporting by applying the RCPath Recommendations for Implementing DP. We have shown a very low rate of discordance between WSI and glass slides. MDPI 2023-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC10341191/ /pubmed/37443538 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13132144 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Kelleher, Mai Colling, Richard Browning, Lisa Roskell, Derek Roberts-Gant, Sharon Shah, Ketan A. Hemsworth, Helen White, Kieron Rees, Gabrielle Dolton, Monica Soares, Maria Fernanda Verrill, Clare Department Wide Validation in Digital Pathology—Experience from an Academic Teaching Hospital Using the UK Royal College of Pathologists’ Guidance |
title | Department Wide Validation in Digital Pathology—Experience from an Academic Teaching Hospital Using the UK Royal College of Pathologists’ Guidance |
title_full | Department Wide Validation in Digital Pathology—Experience from an Academic Teaching Hospital Using the UK Royal College of Pathologists’ Guidance |
title_fullStr | Department Wide Validation in Digital Pathology—Experience from an Academic Teaching Hospital Using the UK Royal College of Pathologists’ Guidance |
title_full_unstemmed | Department Wide Validation in Digital Pathology—Experience from an Academic Teaching Hospital Using the UK Royal College of Pathologists’ Guidance |
title_short | Department Wide Validation in Digital Pathology—Experience from an Academic Teaching Hospital Using the UK Royal College of Pathologists’ Guidance |
title_sort | department wide validation in digital pathology—experience from an academic teaching hospital using the uk royal college of pathologists’ guidance |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10341191/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37443538 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13132144 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kellehermai departmentwidevalidationindigitalpathologyexperiencefromanacademicteachinghospitalusingtheukroyalcollegeofpathologistsguidance AT collingrichard departmentwidevalidationindigitalpathologyexperiencefromanacademicteachinghospitalusingtheukroyalcollegeofpathologistsguidance AT browninglisa departmentwidevalidationindigitalpathologyexperiencefromanacademicteachinghospitalusingtheukroyalcollegeofpathologistsguidance AT roskellderek departmentwidevalidationindigitalpathologyexperiencefromanacademicteachinghospitalusingtheukroyalcollegeofpathologistsguidance AT robertsgantsharon departmentwidevalidationindigitalpathologyexperiencefromanacademicteachinghospitalusingtheukroyalcollegeofpathologistsguidance AT shahketana departmentwidevalidationindigitalpathologyexperiencefromanacademicteachinghospitalusingtheukroyalcollegeofpathologistsguidance AT hemsworthhelen departmentwidevalidationindigitalpathologyexperiencefromanacademicteachinghospitalusingtheukroyalcollegeofpathologistsguidance AT whitekieron departmentwidevalidationindigitalpathologyexperiencefromanacademicteachinghospitalusingtheukroyalcollegeofpathologistsguidance AT reesgabrielle departmentwidevalidationindigitalpathologyexperiencefromanacademicteachinghospitalusingtheukroyalcollegeofpathologistsguidance AT doltonmonica departmentwidevalidationindigitalpathologyexperiencefromanacademicteachinghospitalusingtheukroyalcollegeofpathologistsguidance AT soaresmariafernanda departmentwidevalidationindigitalpathologyexperiencefromanacademicteachinghospitalusingtheukroyalcollegeofpathologistsguidance AT verrillclare departmentwidevalidationindigitalpathologyexperiencefromanacademicteachinghospitalusingtheukroyalcollegeofpathologistsguidance |