Advertisement

Virchows Archiv

, Volume 473, Issue 3, pp 321–327 | Cite as

Validation of digital microscopy in the histopathological diagnoses of oral diseases

  • Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo
  • Gleyson Kleber Amaral-Silva
  • Felipe Paiva Fonseca
  • Natália Rangel Palmier
  • Marcio Ajudarte Lopes
  • Paul M. Speight
  • Oslei Paes de Almeida
  • Pablo Agustin Vargas
  • Alan Roger Santos-Silva
Original Article

Abstract

Whole slide imaging (WSI) systems are being increasingly used in educational and professional settings, highlighting the value of digital microscopy and favouring its acceptance for use in primary diagnosis. There has been a reluctance to introduce diagnostic applications due to a lack of validation and regulation of these devices. This study aims to provide information regarding the performance of WSI and to validate it for use in the diagnosis of oral diseases, using the intraobserver variability as the primary form of analysis. Seventy (n = 70) H&E-stained glass slides of oral biopsies were scanned using the Aperio Digital Pathology System at a magnification of × 20. Two experienced oral pathologists blindly analysed all H&E-stained sections with a conventional light microscope (CLM) and, after 3-month washout, with WSI. Clinical information was provided along with the cases in both analyses. The intraobserver agreement between CLM and WSI was 97% (κ = 0.9) for both pathologists. The majority of preferred diagnoses were by CLM. Both pathologists had the same discordances in different cases. Challenging cases and cases with insufficient quantity of tissue for analyses were considered the main reasons for disagreement rather than the diagnostic methods. Median time taken to make a diagnosis was higher only in CLM for one pathologist. Time outliers occurred in discordant cases and in other difficult cases. This study provides evidence of a high performance of WSI for diagnostic purposes in clinical practice, routine pathology and primary diagnosis in the field of oral pathology.

Keywords

Validation Whole slide imaging Digital pathology Intraobserver agreement 

Notes

Author contributions

All authors had substantial contributions to the conception (Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo, Felipe Paiva Fonseca, Paul M. Speight and Alan Roger Santos-Silva), draft and design (Marcio Ajudarte Lopes, Oslei Paes de Almeida and Pablo Agustin Vargas) of this work, as well as participation of the acquisition (Natália Rangel Palmier and Gleyson Kleber Amaral-Silva), analysis (Oslei Paes de Almeida and Pablo Agustin Vargas) and interpretation (Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo, Paul M. Speight and Alan Roger Santos-Silva) of data for the work. The final version of this work was reviewed and approved for publication by all parts included. Authors Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo and Alan Roger Santos-Silva takes full responsibility for the work as a whole, including the study design, access to data and the decision to submit and publish the manuscript. If there is a need, all authors agree to be accountable for any aspects of the work and we ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The authors also state that the material is original, has not been published elsewhere and is being submitted only to the Virchows Archiv.

Funding

This study was funded by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES/PROEX, Brazil), the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Brazil) and the grants from São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, Brazil) process number: 2009/53839-2, which supported the acquisition of the equipment used.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Boyce BF (2015) Whole slide imaging: uses and limitations for surgical pathology and teaching. Biotech Histochem 90:321–330.  https://doi.org/10.3109/10520295.2015.1033463 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saco A, Ramírez J, Rakislova N, Mira A, Ordi J (2016) Validation of whole-slide imaging for histolopathogical diagnosis: current state. Pathobiology 83:89–98.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000442823 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fonseca FP, Santos-Silva AR, Lopes MA, de Almeida OP, Vargas PA (2015) Transition from glass to digital slide microscopy in the teaching of oral pathology in a Brazilian dental school. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 20:e17–e22.  https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.19863 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fine JL, Grzybicki DM, Silowash R, Ho J, Gilbertson JR, Anthony L, Wilson R, Parwani AV, Bastacky SI, Epstein JI, Jukic DM (2008) Evaluation of whole slide image immunohistochemistry interpretation in challenging prostate needle biopsies. Hum Pathol 39:564–572.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2007.08.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parwani A, Pantanowitz L, Glassy E, Hassell L (2014) Regulatory barriers surrounding the use of whole slide imaging in the United States of America. J Pathol Inform 5:38.  https://doi.org/10.4103/2153-3539.143325 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stathonikos N, Veta M, Huisman A, van Diest P (2013) Going fully digital: perspective of a Dutch academic pathology lab. J Pathol Inform 4:15.  https://doi.org/10.4103/2153-3539.114206 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cornish TC, Swapp RE, Kaplan KJ (2012) Whole-slide imaging: routine pathologic diagnosis. Adv Anat Pathol 19:152–159.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAP.0b013e318253459e CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pantanowitz L, Evans A, Pfeifer J, Collins LC, Valenstein PN, Kaplan KJ, Wilbur DC, Colgan TJ (2011) Review of the current state of whole slide imaging in pathology. J Pathol Inform 2:36.  https://doi.org/10.4103/2153-3539.83746 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pantanowitz L, Farahani N, Parwani A (2015) Whole slide imaging in pathology: advantages, limitations, and emerging perspectives. J. Pathol Lab Med Int:23.  https://doi.org/10.2147/PLMI.S59826
  10. 10.
    Randell R, Ruddle RA, Mello-Thoms C, Thomas RG, Quirke P, Treanor D (2013) Virtual reality microscope versus conventional microscope regarding time to diagnosis: an experimental study. Histopathology 62:351–358.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2012.04323.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krishnamurthy S, Mathews K, McClure S, Murray M, Gilcrease M, Albarracin C, Spinosa J, Chang B, Ho J, Holt J, Cohen A, Giri D, Garg K, Bassett RL Jr, Liang K (2013) Multi-institutional comparison of whole slide digital imaging and optical microscopy for interpretation of hematoxylin-eosin-stained breast tissue sections. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137:1733–1739.  https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2012-0437-OA CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pantanowitz L, Sinard JH, Henricks WH, Fatheree LA, Carter AB, Contis L, Beckwith BA, Evans AJ, Lal A, Parwani AV, College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center (2013) Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137:1710–1722.  https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2013-0093-CP CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Evans A, Garcia B, Godin C et al (2014) Guidelines from the Canadian Association of Pathologists for establishing a telepathology service for anatomic pathology using whole-slide imaging. J Pathol Inform 5:15.  https://doi.org/10.4103/2153-3539.129455 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Food and Drug Administration FDA allows marketing of first whole slide imaging system for digital pathology. https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm552742.htm. Accessed 16 Mar 2017
  16. 16.
    Lange H (2011) Digital pathology: a regulatory overview. Lab Med 42:587–591.  https://doi.org/10.1309/LMA2M9NQQF0ZCVHC CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evans AJ, Chetty R, Clarke BA, Croul S, Ghazarian DM, Kiehl TR, Ordonez BP, Ilaalagan S, Asa SL (2009) Primary frozen section diagnosis by robotic microscopy and virtual slide telepathology: the University Health Network experience. Semin Diagn Pathol 26:165–176.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semdp.2009.09.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thorstenson S (2010) Digital pathology system. Case study. Advance Lab 19:69Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilbur DC, Madi K, Colvin RB, Duncan LM, Faquin WC, Ferry JA, Frosch MP, Houser SL, Kradin RL, Lauwers GY, Louis DN, Mark EJ, Mino-Kenudson M, Misdraji J, Nielsen GP, Pitman MB, Rosenberg AE, Smith RN, Sohani AR, Stone JR, Tambouret RH, Wu CL, Young RH, Zembowicz A, Klietmann W (2009) Whole-slide imaging digital pathology as a platform for teleconsultation: a pilot study using paired subspecialist correlations. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:1949–1953.  https://doi.org/10.1043/1543-2165-133.12.1949 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jukić DM, Drogowski LM, Martina J, Parwani AV (2011) Clinical examination and validation of primary diagnosis in anatomic pathology using whole slide digital images. Arch Pathol Lab Med 135:372–378.  https://doi.org/10.1043/2009-0678-OA.1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saco A, Diaz A, Hernandez M, Martinez D, Montironi C, Castillo P, Rakislova N, del Pino M, Martinez A, Ordi J (2017) Validation of whole-slide imaging in the primary diagnosis of liver biopsies in a University Hospital. Dig Liver Dis 49:1240–1246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2017.07.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fónyad L, Krenács T, Nagy P, Zalatnai A, Csomor J, Sápi Z, Pápay J, Schönléber J, Diczházi C, Molnár B (2012) Validation of diagnostic accuracy using digital slides in routine histopathology. Diagn Pathol 7:35.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-7-35 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Houghton JP, Ervine AJ, Kenny SL, Kelly PJ, Napier SS, McCluggage WG, Walsh MY, Hamilton PW (2014) Concordance between digital pathology and light microscopy in general surgical pathology: a pilot study of 100 cases. J Clin Pathol 67:1052–1055.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202491 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lowry R VassarStats:web site for statistical computation. http://vassarstats.net/. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  26. 26.
    Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Vink A et al (2012) Whole slide images for primary diagnostics in dermatopathology: a feasibility study. J Clin Pathol 65:152–158.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2011-200277 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Campbell WS, Hinrichs SH, Lele SM, Baker JJ, Lazenby AJ, Talmon GA, Smith LM, West WW (2014) Whole slide imaging diagnostic concordance with light microscopy for breast needle biopsies. Hum Pathol 45:1713–1721.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2014.04.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bauer TW, Schoenfield L, Slaw RJ, Yerian L, Sun Z, Henricks WH (2013) Validation of whole slide imaging for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137:518–524.  https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2011-0678-OA CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van der Post RS, Van der Laak JAWM, Sturm B et al (2013) The evaluation of colon biopsies using virtual microscopy is reliable. Histopathology 63:114–121.  https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12131 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nielsen PS, Lindebjerg J, Rasmussen J, Starklint H, Waldstrøm M, Nielsen B (2010) Virtual microscopy: an evaluation of its validity and diagnostic performance in routine histologic diagnosis of skin tumors. Hum Pathol 41:1770–1776.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2010.05.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tabata K, Mori I, Sasaki T, Itoh T, Shiraishi T, Yoshimi N, Maeda I, Harada O, Taniyama K, Taniyama D, Watanabe M, Mikami Y, Sato S, Kashima Y, Fujimura S, Fukuoka J (2017) Whole-slide imaging at primary pathological diagnosis: validation of whole-slide imaging-based primary pathological diagnosis at twelve Japanese academic institutes. Pathol Int 67:547–554.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pin.12590 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brunelli M, Beccari S, Colombari R, Gobbo S, Giobelli L, Pellegrini A, Chilosi M, Lunardi M, Martignoni G, Scarpa A, Eccher A (2014) iPathology cockpit diagnostic station: validation according to College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center recommendation at the Hospital Trust and University of Verona. Diagn Pathol 9:1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-9-S1-S12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Frierson HF, Galgano MT (2007) Frozen-section diagnosis by wireless telepathology and ultra portable computer: use in pathology resident/faculty consultation. Hum Pathol 38:1330–1334.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2007.02.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thrall MJ, Wimmer JL, Schwartz MR (2015) Validation of multiple whole slide imaging scanners based on the guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Arch Pathol Lab Med 139:656–664.  https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2014-0073-OA CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Loughrey MB, Kelly PJ, Houghton OP, Coleman HG, Houghton JP, Carson A, Salto-Tellez M, Hamilton PW (2015) Digital slide viewing for primary reporting in gastrointestinal pathology: a validation study. Virchows Arch 467:137–144.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-015-1780-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fallon MA, Wilbur DC, Prasad M (2010) Ovarian frozen section diagnosis: use of whole-slide imaging shows excellent correlation between virtual slide and original interpretations in a large series of cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med 134:1020–1023.  https://doi.org/10.1043/2009-0320-OA.1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ordi J, Castillo P, Saco A, del Pino M, Ordi O, Rodríguez-Carunchio L, Ramírez J (2015) Validation of whole slide imaging in the primary diagnosis of gynaecological pathology in a University Hospital. J Clin Pathol 68:33–39.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202524 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yagi Y GJ (2005) Speed, resolution, focus, and depth of field in whole slide imaging applications in clinical practice. In: Virtual microscopy and virtual slides in teaching, diagnosis, and Research Edited by: Gu J, Ogilvie RW. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis;Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Speight PM (2007) Update on oral epithelial dysplasia and progression to cancer. Head Neck Pathol 1:61–66.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12105-007-0014-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Takeuchi J, Sobue M, Yoshida M, Esaki T, Katoh Y (1975) Pleomorphic adenoma of the salivary gland. With special reference to histochemical and electron microscopic studies and biochemical analysis of glycosaminoglycans in vivo and in vitro. Cancer 36:1771–1789CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Takeuchi J, Sobue M, Katoh Y, Esaki T, Yoshida M, Miura K (1976) Morphologic and biologic characteristics of adenoid cystic carcinoma cells of the salivary gland. Cancer 38:2349–2356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Khurram SA, Barrett AW, Speight PM (2017) Diagnostic difficulties in lesions of the minor salivary glands. Diag Histopathol 23:250–259.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mpdhp.2017.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vodovnik A (2016) Diagnostic time in digital pathology: a comparative study on 400 cases. J Pathol Inform 7:4.  https://doi.org/10.4103/2153-3539.175377 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Weinstein RS, Descour MR, Liang C, Barker G, Scott KM, Richter L, Krupinski EA, Bhattacharyya AK, Davis JR, Graham AR, Rennels M, Russum WC, Goodall JF, Zhou P, Olszak AG, Williams BH, Wyant JC, Bartels PH (2004) An array microscope for ultrarapid virtual slide processing and telepathology. Design, fabrication, and validation study. Hum Pathol 35:1303–1314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2004.09.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Li X, Liu J, Xu H, Gong E, McNutt MA, Li F, Anderson VM, Gu J (2007) A feasibility study of virtual slides in surgical pathology in China. Hum Pathol 38:1842–1848.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2007.04.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo
    • 1
  • Gleyson Kleber Amaral-Silva
    • 1
  • Felipe Paiva Fonseca
    • 2
  • Natália Rangel Palmier
    • 1
  • Marcio Ajudarte Lopes
    • 1
  • Paul M. Speight
    • 3
  • Oslei Paes de Almeida
    • 1
  • Pablo Agustin Vargas
    • 1
  • Alan Roger Santos-Silva
    • 1
  1. 1.Oral Diagnosis Department, Semiology and Oral Pathology Areas, Piracicaba Dental SchoolUniversity of Campinas (UNICAMP)PiracicabaBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Oral Surgery and Pathology, School of DentistryFederal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG)Belo HorizonteBrazil
  3. 3.Unit of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, School of Clinical DentistryUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations