Advertisement

Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 243–253 | Cite as

Use of Digital Whole Slide Imaging in Dermatopathology

  • Tracy OnegaEmail author
  • Lisa M. Reisch
  • Paul D. Frederick
  • Berta M. Geller
  • Heidi D. Nelson
  • Jason P. Lott
  • Andrea C. Radick
  • David E. Elder
  • Raymond L. Barnhill
  • Michael W. Piepkorn
  • Joann G. Elmore
Article

Abstract

Digital whole slide imaging (WSI) is an emerging technology for pathology interpretation, with specific challenges for dermatopathology, yet little is known about pathologists’ practice patterns or perceptions regarding WSI for interpretation of melanocytic lesions. A national sample of pathologists (N = 207) was recruited from 864 invited pathologists from ten US states (CA, CT, HI, IA, KY, LA, NJ, NM, UT, and WA). Pathologists who had interpreted melanocytic lesions in the past year were surveyed in this cross-sectional study. The survey included questions on pathologists’ experience, WSI practice patterns and perceptions using a 6-point Likert scale. Agreement was summarized with descriptive statistics to characterize pathologists’ use and perceptions of WSI. The majority of participating pathologists were between 40 and 59 years of age (62 %) and not affiliated with an academic medical center (71 %). Use of WSI was seen more often among dermatopathologists and participants affiliated with an academic medical center. Experience with WSI was reported by 41 %, with the most common type of use being for education and testing (CME, board exams, and teaching in general, 71 %), and clinical use at tumor boards and conferences (44 %). Most respondents (77 %) agreed that accurate diagnoses can be made with this technology, and 59 % agreed that benefits of WSI outweigh concerns. However, 78 % of pathologists reported that digital slides are too slow for routine clinical interpretation. The respondents were equally split as to whether they would like to adopt WSI (49 %) or not (51 %). The majority of pathologists who interpret melanocytic lesions do not use WSI, but among pathologists who do, use is largely for CME, licensure/board exams, and teaching. Positive perceptions regarding WSI slightly outweigh negative perceptions. Understanding practice patterns with WSI as dissemination advances may facilitate concordance of perceptions with adoption of the technology.

Keywords

Digital whole slide imaging Melanocytic lesions Dermatopathology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01 CA151306.

References

  1. 1.
    Pantanowitz L, Valenstein PN, Evans AJ, et al: Review of the current state of whole slide imaging in pathology. J Pathol Inform 2:36, 2011CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pantowitz L, Hornish M, Goulart RA: The impact of digital imaging in the field of cytopathology. Cytojournal 6:6, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilbur DC: Digital cytology: current state of the art and prospects for the future. Acta Cytol 55:227–238, 2011CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Velez N, Jukic D, Ho J: Evaluation of two whole-slide imaging applications in dermatopathology. Hum Pathol 39:1341–1349, 2008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Vink A, Leguit J, Offerhaus GJA, ten Kate JFW, van Dijk R, van Diest PJ: Whole slide images for primary diagnostics in dermatopathology: a feasibility study. J Clin Pathol 65:152–158, 2012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/ClassifyYourDevice/. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
  7. 7.
    Brick KE, Comfere NI, Broeren MD, Gibson LE, Wieland CN: The application of virtual microscopy in a dermatopathology educational setting: assessment of attitudes among dermatopathologists. Int J Dermatol 53:224–227, 2014. doi: 10.1111/ijd.12233 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leong FJ, McGee JO: Automated complete slide digitization: a medium for simultaneous viewing by multiple pathologists. J Pathol 195:508–514, 2001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mooney E, Hood AF, Lampros J, et al: Comparative diagnostic accuracy in virtual dermatopathology. Skin Res Technol 17:251–255, 2011CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mooney E, Kempf W, Jemec GBE, Koch L, Hood A: Diagnostic accuracy in virtual dermatopathology. J Cutan Pathol 39:758–761, 2012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bruch LA, De Young BR, Kreiter CD, et al: Competency assessment of residents in surgical pathology using virtual microscopy. Hum Pathol 40:1122–1128, 2009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brick KE, Sluzevich JC, Cappel MA, et al: Comparison of virtual microscopy and glass slide microscopy during a simulated in-training examination. American Society of Dermatopathology 49th Annua Meeting, October 11–14, 2012, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leinweber B, Massone C, Kodama K, et al: Teledermatopathology: a controlled study about diagnostic validity and technical requirements for digital transmission. Am J Dermatopathol 28:413–416, 2006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zembowicz A, Ahmad A, Lyle SR: A comprehensive analysis of a web-based dermatopathology second opinion consultation practice. Arch Pathol Lab Med 135:379–383, 2011PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Okada DH, Binder SW, Felten CL, Strauss JS, Marchevsky AM: “Virtual microscopy” and the internet as telepathology consultation tools: diagnostic accuracy in evaluating melanocytic skin lesions. Am J Dermatopathol 21:525, 1999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koch LH, Lampros JN, Delong LK, et al: Randomized comparison of virtual microscopy and traditional glass microscopy in diagnostic accuracy among dermatology and pathology residents. Hum Pathol 40:662–667, 2009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wong SL, Balch CM, Hurley P, Agarwala SS, Akhurst TJ, Cochran A, et al: Sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology joint clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 30(23):2912–2918, 2012. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.3519 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wong SL, Balch CM, Hurley P, Agarwala SS, Akhurst TJ, Cochran A, et al: Sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology joint clinical practice guideline. Ann Surg Oncol 19(11):3313–3324, 2012. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2475-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Direct Medical Data, LLC. http://www.dmddata.com/data_lists_physicians.asp. Accessed 1 Jun 2015
  20. 20.
    Willis, Gordon B: Cognitive Interviewing: A “How To” Guide. In Meeting of the American Statistical Association. 1999Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cornish TC, Swapp RE, Kaplan KJ: Whole-slide imaging: routine pathologic diagnosis. Adv Anat Pathol 19:152–159, 2012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Elmore JG. Accuracy in the diagnosis of melanoma and the impact of double reading. Baseline Survey. http://sph.washington.edu/faculty/fac_bio.asp?url_ID=Elmore_Joann. 2015. Accessed 1 Jun 2015
  23. 23.
    Ghaznavi F, Evans A, Madabhushni A, Feldman M: Digital imaging in pathology: whole-slide imaging and beyond. Annu Rev Pathol Mech Dis 8:331–359, 2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Henricks WH: Evaluation of whole slide imaging for routine surgical pathology: looking through a broader scope. J Pathol Inform 3:39, 2012CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cerroni L, Barnhill R, Elder D, Gottlieb G, Heenan P, Kutzner H, LeBoit PE, Mihm M, Jr., Rosai J, Kerl H: Melanocytic tumors of uncertain malignant potential (MELTUMPs): Results of a Tutorial held at the XXIX Symposium of the International Society of Dermatopathology in Graz, October 2008. Am J Surg Pathol 34(3):314–326, 2010Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hashimoto N, Bautista PA, Yamaguchi M, Ohyama N, Yagi Y: Referenceless image quality evaluation for whole slide imaging. J Pathol Inform 3:9, 2012CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ho J, Parwani AV, Jukic CM, et al: Use of whole slide imaging in surgical pathology quality assurance: design and pilot validation studies. Hum Pathol 37:322–331, 2006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Campbell WS, Lele SM, West WW, Lazenby AJ, Smith LM, Hinrichs SH: Concordance between whole-slide imaging and light microscopy for routine surgical pathology. Hum Pathol 43:1739–1744, 2012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reyes C, Ikpatt OF, Nadji M, Cote RJ: Intra-observer reproducibility of whole slide imaging for the primary diagnosis of breast needle biopsies. J Pathol Inform 1–5, 2014.  10.4103/2153-3539.127814
  30. 30.
    Cann J, Chlipala E, Ellin J, Kawano Y, Knight B, Long RE, Lowe A, Machotka SV, Smith A: Validation of digital pathology systems in the regulated nonclinical environment. Digital Pathology Association white paper. 2011, https://digitalpathologyassociation.org/white-papers_1
  31. 31.
    Onega T, Weaver D, Geller B, Oster N, Tosteson ANA, Carney PA, Nelson H, Allison KH, Elmore JE: Digitized whole slides for breast pathology interpretation: current practices and perceptions. J Digit Imaging, 2014. doi: 10.1007/s10278-014-9683-2 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mea VD, Demichelis F, Viel F, Palma PD, Betlrami CA: User attitudes in analyzing digital slides in a quality control test bed: a preliminary study. Comput Methods Prog Biomed 82:177–186, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bellis M, Metias S, Naugler C, Pollett A, Jothy S, Yousef GM: Digital pathology: attitudes and practices in the Canadian pathology community. J Pathol Inform 4:3, 2013. doi: 10.4103/2153-3539.108540. Print 2013PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tracy Onega
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lisa M. Reisch
    • 3
  • Paul D. Frederick
    • 3
  • Berta M. Geller
    • 4
  • Heidi D. Nelson
    • 5
  • Jason P. Lott
    • 6
  • Andrea C. Radick
    • 7
  • David E. Elder
    • 8
  • Raymond L. Barnhill
    • 9
    • 10
  • Michael W. Piepkorn
    • 11
    • 12
  • Joann G. Elmore
    • 13
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical Data Science, Department of EpidemiologyNorris Cotton Cancer CenterLebanonUSA
  2. 2.Geisel School of Medicine at DartmouthThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical PracticeLebanonUSA
  3. 3.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Family MedicineUniversity of Vermont BurlingtonBurlingtonUSA
  5. 5.Oregon Health & Sciences UniversityPortlandUSA
  6. 6.Yale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  7. 7.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  8. 8.Hospital of the University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  9. 9.Department of PathologyInstitut CurieParisFrance
  10. 10.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  11. 11.Division of Dermatology, Department of MedicineUniversity of Washington School of MedicineSeattleUSA
  12. 12.Dermatopathology NorthwestBellevueUSA
  13. 13.Department of MedicineUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations