2014Journal of Clinical PathologyRequires access

Concordance between digital pathology and light microscopy in general surgical pathology: a pilot study of 100 cases

Joseph Houghton, Aaron Ervine, Sarah L. Kenny, Paul J. Kelly, Séamus S. Napier, W. Glenn McCluggage, MAUREEN Y. WALSH, Peter W. Hamilton

Open publisher page 37 citations

Abstract

AIM: (1) A pilot study to determine the accuracy of interpretation of whole slide digital images in a broad range of general histopathology cases of graded complexity. (2) To survey the participating histopathologists with regard to acceptability of digital pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Glass slides of 100 biopsies and minor resections were digitally scanned in their entirety, producing digital slides. These cases had been diagnosed by light microscopy at least 1 year previously and were subsequently reassessed by the original reporting pathologist (who was blinded to their original diagnosis) using digital pathology. The digital pathology-based diagnosis was compared with the original glass slide diagnosis and classified as concordant, slightly discordant (without clinical consequence) or discordant. The participants were surveyed at the end of the study. RESULTS: There was concordance between the original light microscopy diagnosis and digital pathology-based diagnosis in 95 of the 100 cases while the remaining 5 cases showed only slight discordance (with no clinical consequence). None of the cases were categorised as discordant. Participants had mixed experiences using digital pathology technology. CONCLUSIONS: In the broad range of cases we examined, digital pathology is a safe and viable method of making a primary histopathological diagnosis.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

AIM: (1) A pilot study to determine the accuracy of interpretation of whole slide digital images in a broad range of general histopathology cases of graded complexity. (2) To survey the participating histopathologists with regard to acceptability of digital pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Glass slides of 100 biopsies and minor resections were digitally scanned in their entirety, producing digital slides. These cases had been diagnosed by light microscopy at least 1 year previously and were subsequently reassessed by the original reporting pathologist (who was blinded to their original diagnosis) using digital pathology. The digital pathology-based diagnosis was compared with the original glass slide diagnosis and classified as concordant, slightly discordant (without clinical consequence) or discordant. The participants were surveyed at the end of the study. RESULTS: There was concordance between the original light microscopy diagnosis and digital pathology-based diagnosis in 95 of the 100 cases while the remaining 5 cases showed only slight discordance (with no clinical consequence). None of the cases were categorised as discordant. Participants had mixed experiences using digital pathology technology. CONCLUSIONS: In the broad range of cases we examined, digital pathology is a safe and viable method of making a primary histopathological diagnosis.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 37 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

AIM: (1) A pilot study to determine the accuracy of interpretation of whole slide digital images in a broad range of general histopathology cases of graded complexity. (2) To survey the participating histopathologists with regard to acceptability of digital pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Glass slides of 100 biopsies and minor resections were digitally scanned in their entirety, producing digital slides. These cases had been diagnosed by light microscopy at least 1 year previously and were subsequently reassessed by the original reporting pathologist (who was blinded to their original diagnosis) using digital pathology. The digital pathology-based diagnosis was compared with the original glass slide diagnosis and classified as concordant, slightly discordant (without clinical consequence) or discordant. The participants were surveyed at the end of the study. RESULTS: There was concordance between the original light microscopy diagnosis and digital pathology-based diagnosis in 95 of the 100 cases while the remaining 5 cases showed only slight discordance (with no clinical consequence). None of the cases were categorised as discordant. Participants had mixed experiences using digital pathology technology. CONCLUSIONS: In the broad range of cases we examined, digital pathology is a safe and viable method of making a primary histopathological diagnosis.

Key concepts: Surgical pathology, Digital pathology, Pathology, Concordance, Anatomical pathology, Medicine, General pathology, Bone pathology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Concordance between digital pathology and light microscopy in general surgical pathology: a pilot study of 100 cases — Research Paper | ScholarLens