Cargando…

Comparative Assessment of Digital Pathology Systems for Primary Diagnosis

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing interest in whole-slide imaging (WSI) over optical microscopy (OM), limited information on comparative assessment of various digital pathology systems (DPSs) is available. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive evaluation was undertaken to investigate the technical per...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rajaganesan, Sathyanarayanan, Kumar, Rajiv, Rao, Vidya, Pai, Trupti, Mittal, Neha, Sahay, Ayushi, Menon, Santosh, Desai, Sangeeta
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8356707/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34447605
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpi.jpi_94_20
_version_ 1783736997454544896
author Rajaganesan, Sathyanarayanan
Kumar, Rajiv
Rao, Vidya
Pai, Trupti
Mittal, Neha
Sahay, Ayushi
Menon, Santosh
Desai, Sangeeta
author_facet Rajaganesan, Sathyanarayanan
Kumar, Rajiv
Rao, Vidya
Pai, Trupti
Mittal, Neha
Sahay, Ayushi
Menon, Santosh
Desai, Sangeeta
author_sort Rajaganesan, Sathyanarayanan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite increasing interest in whole-slide imaging (WSI) over optical microscopy (OM), limited information on comparative assessment of various digital pathology systems (DPSs) is available. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive evaluation was undertaken to investigate the technical performance–assessment and diagnostic accuracy of four DPSs with an objective to establish the noninferiority of WSI over OM and find out the best possible DPS for clinical workflow. RESULTS: A total of 2376 digital images, 15,775 image reads (OM - 3171 + WSI - 12,404), and 6100 diagnostic reads (OM - 1245, WSI - 4855) were generated across four DPSs (coded as DPS: 1, 2, 3, and 4) using a total 240 cases (604 slides). Onsite technical evaluation revealed successful scan rate: DPS3 < DPS2 < DPS4 < DPS1; mean scanning time: DPS4 < DPS1 < DPS2 < DPS3; and average storage space: DPS3 < DPS2 < DPS1 < DPS4. Overall diagnostic accuracy, when compared with the reference standard for OM and WSI, was 95.44% (including 2.48% minor and 2.08% major discordances) and 93.32% (including 4.28% minor and 2.4% major discordances), respectively. The difference between the clinically significant discordances by WSI versus OM was 0.32%. Major discordances were observed mostly using DPS4 and least in DPS1; however, the difference was statistically insignificant. Almost perfect (κ ≥ 0.8)/substantial (κ = 0.6–0.8) inter/intra-observer agreement between WSI and OM was observed for all specimen types, except cytology. Overall image quality was best for DPS1 followed by DPS4. Mean digital artifact rate was 6.8% (163/2376 digital images) and maximum artifacts were noted in DPS2 (n = 77) followed by DPS3 (n = 36). Most pathologists preferred viewing software of DPS1 and DPS2. CONCLUSION: WSI was noninferior to OM for all specimen types, except for cytology. Each DPS has its own pros and cons; however, DPS1 closely emulated the real-world clinical environment. This evaluation is intended to provide a roadmap to pathologists for the selection of the appropriate DPSs while adopting WSI.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8356707
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83567072021-08-25 Comparative Assessment of Digital Pathology Systems for Primary Diagnosis Rajaganesan, Sathyanarayanan Kumar, Rajiv Rao, Vidya Pai, Trupti Mittal, Neha Sahay, Ayushi Menon, Santosh Desai, Sangeeta J Pathol Inform Original Article BACKGROUND: Despite increasing interest in whole-slide imaging (WSI) over optical microscopy (OM), limited information on comparative assessment of various digital pathology systems (DPSs) is available. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive evaluation was undertaken to investigate the technical performance–assessment and diagnostic accuracy of four DPSs with an objective to establish the noninferiority of WSI over OM and find out the best possible DPS for clinical workflow. RESULTS: A total of 2376 digital images, 15,775 image reads (OM - 3171 + WSI - 12,404), and 6100 diagnostic reads (OM - 1245, WSI - 4855) were generated across four DPSs (coded as DPS: 1, 2, 3, and 4) using a total 240 cases (604 slides). Onsite technical evaluation revealed successful scan rate: DPS3 < DPS2 < DPS4 < DPS1; mean scanning time: DPS4 < DPS1 < DPS2 < DPS3; and average storage space: DPS3 < DPS2 < DPS1 < DPS4. Overall diagnostic accuracy, when compared with the reference standard for OM and WSI, was 95.44% (including 2.48% minor and 2.08% major discordances) and 93.32% (including 4.28% minor and 2.4% major discordances), respectively. The difference between the clinically significant discordances by WSI versus OM was 0.32%. Major discordances were observed mostly using DPS4 and least in DPS1; however, the difference was statistically insignificant. Almost perfect (κ ≥ 0.8)/substantial (κ = 0.6–0.8) inter/intra-observer agreement between WSI and OM was observed for all specimen types, except cytology. Overall image quality was best for DPS1 followed by DPS4. Mean digital artifact rate was 6.8% (163/2376 digital images) and maximum artifacts were noted in DPS2 (n = 77) followed by DPS3 (n = 36). Most pathologists preferred viewing software of DPS1 and DPS2. CONCLUSION: WSI was noninferior to OM for all specimen types, except for cytology. Each DPS has its own pros and cons; however, DPS1 closely emulated the real-world clinical environment. This evaluation is intended to provide a roadmap to pathologists for the selection of the appropriate DPSs while adopting WSI. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8356707/ /pubmed/34447605 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpi.jpi_94_20 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Journal of Pathology Informatics https://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 Original Article
Rajaganesan, Sathyanarayanan
Kumar, Rajiv
Rao, Vidya
Pai, Trupti
Mittal, Neha
Sahay, Ayushi
Menon, Santosh
Desai, Sangeeta
Comparative Assessment of Digital Pathology Systems for Primary Diagnosis
title Comparative Assessment of Digital Pathology Systems for Primary Diagnosis
title_full Comparative Assessment of Digital Pathology Systems for Primary Diagnosis
title_fullStr Comparative Assessment of Digital Pathology Systems for Primary Diagnosis
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Assessment of Digital Pathology Systems for Primary Diagnosis
title_short Comparative Assessment of Digital Pathology Systems for Primary Diagnosis
title_sort comparative assessment of digital pathology systems for primary diagnosis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8356707/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34447605
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpi.jpi_94_20
work_keys_str_mv AT rajaganesansathyanarayanan comparativeassessmentofdigitalpathologysystemsforprimarydiagnosis
AT kumarrajiv comparativeassessmentofdigitalpathologysystemsforprimarydiagnosis
AT raovidya comparativeassessmentofdigitalpathologysystemsforprimarydiagnosis
AT paitrupti comparativeassessmentofdigitalpathologysystemsforprimarydiagnosis
AT mittalneha comparativeassessmentofdigitalpathologysystemsforprimarydiagnosis
AT sahayayushi comparativeassessmentofdigitalpathologysystemsforprimarydiagnosis
AT menonsantosh comparativeassessmentofdigitalpathologysystemsforprimarydiagnosis
AT desaisangeeta comparativeassessmentofdigitalpathologysystemsforprimarydiagnosis