Cargando…

Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis

BACKGROUND: The quality and limitations of digital slides are not fully known. We aimed to estimate intrapathologist discrepancy in detecting specific microscopic features on glass slides and digital slides created by scanning at ×20. METHODS: Hematoxylin and eosin and periodic acid–Schiff glass sli...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vyas, Nikki S., Markow, Michael, Prieto-Granada, Carlos, Gaudi, Sudeep, Turner, Leslie, Rodriguez-Waitkus, Paul, Messina, Jane L., Jukic, Drazen M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4977977/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27563489
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2153-3539.186909
_version_ 1782447133019865088
author Vyas, Nikki S.
Markow, Michael
Prieto-Granada, Carlos
Gaudi, Sudeep
Turner, Leslie
Rodriguez-Waitkus, Paul
Messina, Jane L.
Jukic, Drazen M.
author_facet Vyas, Nikki S.
Markow, Michael
Prieto-Granada, Carlos
Gaudi, Sudeep
Turner, Leslie
Rodriguez-Waitkus, Paul
Messina, Jane L.
Jukic, Drazen M.
author_sort Vyas, Nikki S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The quality and limitations of digital slides are not fully known. We aimed to estimate intrapathologist discrepancy in detecting specific microscopic features on glass slides and digital slides created by scanning at ×20. METHODS: Hematoxylin and eosin and periodic acid–Schiff glass slides were digitized using the Mirax Scan (Carl Zeiss Inc., Germany). Six pathologists assessed 50–71 digital slides. We recorded objective magnification, total time, and detection of the following: Mast cells; eosinophils; plasma cells; pigmented macrophages; melanin in the epidermis; fungal bodies; neutrophils; civatte bodies; parakeratosis; and sebocytes. This process was repeated using the corresponding glass slides after 3 weeks. The diagnosis was not required. RESULTS: The mean time to assess digital slides was 176.77 s and 137.61 s for glass slides (P < 0.001, 99% confidence interval [CI]). The mean objective magnification used to detect features using digital slides was 18.28 and 14.07 for glass slides (P < 0.001, 99.99% CI). Parakeratosis, civatte bodies, pigmented macrophages, melanin in the epidermis, mast cells, eosinophils, plasma cells, and neutrophils, were identified at lower objectives on glass slides (P = 0.023–0.001, 95% CI). Average intraobserver concordance ranged from κ = 0.30 to κ = 0.78. Features with poor to fair average concordance were: Melanin in the epidermis (κ = 0.15–0.58); plasma cells (κ = 0.15–0.49); and neutrophils (κ = 0.12–0.48). Features with moderate average intrapathologist concordance were: parakeratosis (κ = 0.21–0.61); civatte bodies (κ = 0.21–0.71); pigment-laden macrophages (κ = 0.34–0.66); mast cells (κ = 0.29–0.78); and eosinophils (κ = 0.31–0.79). The average intrapathologist concordance was good for sebocytes (κ = 0.51–1.00) and fungal bodies (κ = 0.47–0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Telepathology using digital slides scanned at ×20 is sufficient for detection of histopathologic features routinely encountered in dermatitis cases, though less efficient than glass slides.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4977977
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49779772016-08-25 Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis Vyas, Nikki S. Markow, Michael Prieto-Granada, Carlos Gaudi, Sudeep Turner, Leslie Rodriguez-Waitkus, Paul Messina, Jane L. Jukic, Drazen M. J Pathol Inform Research Article BACKGROUND: The quality and limitations of digital slides are not fully known. We aimed to estimate intrapathologist discrepancy in detecting specific microscopic features on glass slides and digital slides created by scanning at ×20. METHODS: Hematoxylin and eosin and periodic acid–Schiff glass slides were digitized using the Mirax Scan (Carl Zeiss Inc., Germany). Six pathologists assessed 50–71 digital slides. We recorded objective magnification, total time, and detection of the following: Mast cells; eosinophils; plasma cells; pigmented macrophages; melanin in the epidermis; fungal bodies; neutrophils; civatte bodies; parakeratosis; and sebocytes. This process was repeated using the corresponding glass slides after 3 weeks. The diagnosis was not required. RESULTS: The mean time to assess digital slides was 176.77 s and 137.61 s for glass slides (P < 0.001, 99% confidence interval [CI]). The mean objective magnification used to detect features using digital slides was 18.28 and 14.07 for glass slides (P < 0.001, 99.99% CI). Parakeratosis, civatte bodies, pigmented macrophages, melanin in the epidermis, mast cells, eosinophils, plasma cells, and neutrophils, were identified at lower objectives on glass slides (P = 0.023–0.001, 95% CI). Average intraobserver concordance ranged from κ = 0.30 to κ = 0.78. Features with poor to fair average concordance were: Melanin in the epidermis (κ = 0.15–0.58); plasma cells (κ = 0.15–0.49); and neutrophils (κ = 0.12–0.48). Features with moderate average intrapathologist concordance were: parakeratosis (κ = 0.21–0.61); civatte bodies (κ = 0.21–0.71); pigment-laden macrophages (κ = 0.34–0.66); mast cells (κ = 0.29–0.78); and eosinophils (κ = 0.31–0.79). The average intrapathologist concordance was good for sebocytes (κ = 0.51–1.00) and fungal bodies (κ = 0.47–0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Telepathology using digital slides scanned at ×20 is sufficient for detection of histopathologic features routinely encountered in dermatitis cases, though less efficient than glass slides. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016-07-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4977977/ /pubmed/27563489 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2153-3539.186909 Text en Copyright: © 2016 Journal of Pathology Informatics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Research Article
Vyas, Nikki S.
Markow, Michael
Prieto-Granada, Carlos
Gaudi, Sudeep
Turner, Leslie
Rodriguez-Waitkus, Paul
Messina, Jane L.
Jukic, Drazen M.
Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis
title Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis
title_full Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis
title_fullStr Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis
title_full_unstemmed Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis
title_short Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis
title_sort comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4977977/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27563489
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2153-3539.186909
work_keys_str_mv AT vyasnikkis comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis
AT markowmichael comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis
AT prietogranadacarlos comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis
AT gaudisudeep comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis
AT turnerleslie comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis
AT rodriguezwaitkuspaul comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis
AT messinajanel comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis
AT jukicdrazenm comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis