Cargando…

(Re) Defining the High-Power Field for Digital Pathology

BACKGROUND: The microscope high-power field (HPF) is the cornerstone for histopathology diagnostic evaluation such as the quantification of mitotic figures, lymphocytes, and tumor grading. With traditional light microscopy, HPFs are typically evaluated by quantifying histologic events in 10 fields o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, David, Pantanowitz, Liron, Schüffler, Peter, Yarlagadda, Dig Vijay Kumar, Ardon, Orly, Reuter, Victor E., Hameed, Meera, Klimstra, David S., Hanna, Matthew G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7737490/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33343994
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpi.jpi_48_20
_version_ 1783622951196688384
author Kim, David
Pantanowitz, Liron
Schüffler, Peter
Yarlagadda, Dig Vijay Kumar
Ardon, Orly
Reuter, Victor E.
Hameed, Meera
Klimstra, David S.
Hanna, Matthew G.
author_facet Kim, David
Pantanowitz, Liron
Schüffler, Peter
Yarlagadda, Dig Vijay Kumar
Ardon, Orly
Reuter, Victor E.
Hameed, Meera
Klimstra, David S.
Hanna, Matthew G.
author_sort Kim, David
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The microscope high-power field (HPF) is the cornerstone for histopathology diagnostic evaluation such as the quantification of mitotic figures, lymphocytes, and tumor grading. With traditional light microscopy, HPFs are typically evaluated by quantifying histologic events in 10 fields of view at × 400 magnification. In the era of digital pathology, new variables are introduced that may affect HPF evaluation. The aim of this study was to determine the parameters that influence HPF in whole slide images (WSIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Glass slides scanned on various devices (Leica's Aperio GT450, AT2, and ScanScope XT; Philips UltraFast Scanner; Hamamatsu's Nanozoomer 2.0HT; and 3DHistech's P1000) were compared to acquired digital slides reviewed on each vendor's respective WSI viewer software (e.g., Aperio ImageScope, ImageScope DX, Philips IMS, 3DHistech CaseViewer, and Hamamatsu NDP.view) and an in-house developed vendor-agnostic viewer. WSIs were reviewed at “×40” equivalent HPF on different sized monitors with varying display resolutions (1900 × 1080–4500 × 3000) and aspect ratios (e.g., Food and Drug Administration [FDA]-cleared 27” Philips PS27QHDCR, FDA-cleared 24” Dell MR2416, 24” Hewlett Packard Z24n G2, and 28” Microsoft Surface Studio). Digital and microscopic HPF areas were calculated and compared. RESULTS: A significant variation of HPF area occurred between differing monitor size and display resolutions with minor differences between WSI viewers. No differences were identified by scanner or WSIs scanned at different resolutions (e.g., 0.5, 0.25, 0.24, and 0.12 μm/pixel). CONCLUSION: Glass slide HPF at × 400 magnification with conventional light microscopy was not equivalent to “×40” digital HPF areas. Digital HPF quantification may vary due to differences in the tissue area displayed by monitor sizes, display resolutions, and WSI viewers but not by scanner or scanning resolution. These findings will need to be further clinically validated with potentially new digital metrics for evaluation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7737490
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77374902020-12-18 (Re) Defining the High-Power Field for Digital Pathology Kim, David Pantanowitz, Liron Schüffler, Peter Yarlagadda, Dig Vijay Kumar Ardon, Orly Reuter, Victor E. Hameed, Meera Klimstra, David S. Hanna, Matthew G. J Pathol Inform Technical Note BACKGROUND: The microscope high-power field (HPF) is the cornerstone for histopathology diagnostic evaluation such as the quantification of mitotic figures, lymphocytes, and tumor grading. With traditional light microscopy, HPFs are typically evaluated by quantifying histologic events in 10 fields of view at × 400 magnification. In the era of digital pathology, new variables are introduced that may affect HPF evaluation. The aim of this study was to determine the parameters that influence HPF in whole slide images (WSIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Glass slides scanned on various devices (Leica's Aperio GT450, AT2, and ScanScope XT; Philips UltraFast Scanner; Hamamatsu's Nanozoomer 2.0HT; and 3DHistech's P1000) were compared to acquired digital slides reviewed on each vendor's respective WSI viewer software (e.g., Aperio ImageScope, ImageScope DX, Philips IMS, 3DHistech CaseViewer, and Hamamatsu NDP.view) and an in-house developed vendor-agnostic viewer. WSIs were reviewed at “×40” equivalent HPF on different sized monitors with varying display resolutions (1900 × 1080–4500 × 3000) and aspect ratios (e.g., Food and Drug Administration [FDA]-cleared 27” Philips PS27QHDCR, FDA-cleared 24” Dell MR2416, 24” Hewlett Packard Z24n G2, and 28” Microsoft Surface Studio). Digital and microscopic HPF areas were calculated and compared. RESULTS: A significant variation of HPF area occurred between differing monitor size and display resolutions with minor differences between WSI viewers. No differences were identified by scanner or WSIs scanned at different resolutions (e.g., 0.5, 0.25, 0.24, and 0.12 μm/pixel). CONCLUSION: Glass slide HPF at × 400 magnification with conventional light microscopy was not equivalent to “×40” digital HPF areas. Digital HPF quantification may vary due to differences in the tissue area displayed by monitor sizes, display resolutions, and WSI viewers but not by scanner or scanning resolution. These findings will need to be further clinically validated with potentially new digital metrics for evaluation. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020-10-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7737490/ /pubmed/33343994 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpi.jpi_48_20 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Journal of Pathology Informatics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Technical Note
Kim, David
Pantanowitz, Liron
Schüffler, Peter
Yarlagadda, Dig Vijay Kumar
Ardon, Orly
Reuter, Victor E.
Hameed, Meera
Klimstra, David S.
Hanna, Matthew G.
(Re) Defining the High-Power Field for Digital Pathology
title (Re) Defining the High-Power Field for Digital Pathology
title_full (Re) Defining the High-Power Field for Digital Pathology
title_fullStr (Re) Defining the High-Power Field for Digital Pathology
title_full_unstemmed (Re) Defining the High-Power Field for Digital Pathology
title_short (Re) Defining the High-Power Field for Digital Pathology
title_sort (re) defining the high-power field for digital pathology
topic Technical Note
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7737490/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33343994
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpi.jpi_48_20
work_keys_str_mv AT kimdavid redefiningthehighpowerfieldfordigitalpathology
AT pantanowitzliron redefiningthehighpowerfieldfordigitalpathology
AT schufflerpeter redefiningthehighpowerfieldfordigitalpathology
AT yarlagaddadigvijaykumar redefiningthehighpowerfieldfordigitalpathology
AT ardonorly redefiningthehighpowerfieldfordigitalpathology
AT reutervictore redefiningthehighpowerfieldfordigitalpathology
AT hameedmeera redefiningthehighpowerfieldfordigitalpathology
AT klimstradavids redefiningthehighpowerfieldfordigitalpathology
AT hannamatthewg redefiningthehighpowerfieldfordigitalpathology