Impact of mobile devices on cancer diagnosis in cytology.
WSI
adapters
diagnostic concordance
digital cytology
mobile devices
smartphones
tablets
Journal
Diagnostic cytopathology
ISSN: 1097-0339
Titre abrégé: Diagn Cytopathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8506895
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
revised:
06
10
2021
received:
24
08
2021
accepted:
14
10
2021
pubmed:
23
10
2021
medline:
5
4
2022
entrez:
22
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Digital pathology has widened pathologists' opportunities to examine both surgical and cytological samples. Recently, portable mobile devices like tablets and smartphones have been tested for application with digital technologies including static, dynamic, and more recently whole slide imaging. This study aimed to review the published literature on the impact of mobile devices on cancer diagnoses in cytology. This analysis focused on their diagnostic potential, technical details, critical issues and pitfalls, and economical aspects. A systematic search was carried out in the electronic databases Embase and PubMed. Studies dealing with the application of mobile devices for diagnosing cancer on cytological specimens were included. The quality of studies was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. The main themes addressed were the comparison of manual examination with light microscopy and the use of mobile tools for primary diagnosis. The technical features of different models of smartphones and tablets, software, and adapters were also studied in terms of feasibility and costs-analysis. Of 2458 retrieved articles, 18 were included. Concordance with light microscopy was good and diagnostic performance comparable with an expert pathologist's diagnosis. The mobile devices studied differed, sometimes significantly, in terms of speed and cost. The utility was improved by employing specifically designed adapters. Image acquisition and transmission represent the main critical points in almost all studies. The use of mobile devices demonstrated promising results regarding the digital evaluation of cytological samples. Widespread adoption even in underserved areas is anticipated following validation studies, technology improvements, and reduction in the costs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Digital pathology has widened pathologists' opportunities to examine both surgical and cytological samples. Recently, portable mobile devices like tablets and smartphones have been tested for application with digital technologies including static, dynamic, and more recently whole slide imaging. This study aimed to review the published literature on the impact of mobile devices on cancer diagnoses in cytology. This analysis focused on their diagnostic potential, technical details, critical issues and pitfalls, and economical aspects.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic search was carried out in the electronic databases Embase and PubMed. Studies dealing with the application of mobile devices for diagnosing cancer on cytological specimens were included. The quality of studies was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. The main themes addressed were the comparison of manual examination with light microscopy and the use of mobile tools for primary diagnosis. The technical features of different models of smartphones and tablets, software, and adapters were also studied in terms of feasibility and costs-analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 2458 retrieved articles, 18 were included. Concordance with light microscopy was good and diagnostic performance comparable with an expert pathologist's diagnosis. The mobile devices studied differed, sometimes significantly, in terms of speed and cost. The utility was improved by employing specifically designed adapters. Image acquisition and transmission represent the main critical points in almost all studies.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The use of mobile devices demonstrated promising results regarding the digital evaluation of cytological samples. Widespread adoption even in underserved areas is anticipated following validation studies, technology improvements, and reduction in the costs.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
34-45Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Pallua JD, Brunner A, Zelger B, Schirmer M, Haybaeck J. The future of pathology is digital. Pathol Res Pract. 2020;216(9):153040. doi:10.1016/j.prp.2020.153040
Jahn SW, Plass M, Moinfar F. Digital pathology: advantages, limitations and emerging perspectives. J Clin Med. 2020;9(11):3697. doi:10.3390/jcm9113697.
Pantanowitz L, Hornish M, Goulart R. The impact of digital imaging in the field of cytopathology. Cytojournal. 2009;6(1):6. doi:10.4103/1742-6413.48606
Khalbuss WE, Pantanowitz L, Parwani AV. Digital imaging in cytopathology. Patholog Res Int. 2011;2011:264683. doi:10.4061/2011/264683
Hamilton PW, Wang Y, McCullough SJ. Virtual microscopy and digital pathology in training and education. Apmis. 2012;120(4):305-315. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0463.2011.02869.x
Weinstein RS, Descour MR, Liang C, et al. Telepathology overview: from concept to implementation. Hum Pathol. 2001;32(12):1283-1299. doi:10.1053/hupa.2001.29643
Zarella MD, Bowman D, Aeffner F, et al. A practical guide to whole slide imaging: a white paper from the digital pathology association. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019;143(2):222-234. doi:10.5858/arpa.2018-0343-RA
Girolami I, Pantanowitz L, Marletta S, et al. Diagnostic concordance between whole slide imaging and conventional light microscopy in cytopathology: A systematic review. Cancer Cytopathol. 2020;128(1):17-28. doi:10.1002/cncy.22195
Eccher A, Girolami I. Current state of whole slide imaging use in cytopathology: pros and pitfalls. Cytopathology. 2020;31(5):372-378. doi:10.1111/cyt.12806
Salama AM, Hanna MG, Giri D, et al. Digital validation of breast biomarkers (ER, PR, AR, and HER2) in cytology specimens using three different scanners. Mod Pathol. 2021;13. doi:10.1038/s41379-021-00908-5. Online ahead of print.
Capitanio A, Dina RE, Treanor D. Digital cytology: a short review of technical and methodological approaches and applications. Cytopathology. 2018;29(4):317-325. doi:10.1111/cyt.12554
Asgary R, Cole H, Adongo P, et al. Acceptability and implementation challenges of smartphone-based training of community health nurses for visual inspection with acetic acid in Ghana: mHealth and cervical cancer screening. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e030528. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030528.
Furdova A, Furdova A, Krcmery V. Our experience with smartphone and spherical lens for the eye fundus examination during humanitarian project in Africa. Int J Ophthalmol. 2017;10(1):157-160. doi:10.18240/ijo.2017.01.25
Coulibaly JT, Ouattara M, D'Ambrosio MV, et al. Accuracy of mobile phone and handheld light microscopy for the diagnosis of schistosomiasis and intestinal protozoa infections in Côte d'Ivoire. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(6):1-10. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0004768
Bogoch II, Andrews JR, Speich B, et al. Short report: mobile phone microscopy for the diagnosis of soil-transmitted helminth infections: a proof-of-concept study. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013;88(4):626-629. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.12-0742
Yu H, Yang F, Rajaraman S, et al. Malaria Screener: a smartphone application for automated malaria screening. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20(1):825. doi:10.1186/s12879-020-05453-1
Breslauer DN, Maamari RN, Switz NA, Lam WA, Fletcher DA. Mobile phone based clinical microscopy for global health applications. PLoS One. 2009;4(7):1-7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006320
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700-b2700. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/843571
Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-536. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
Munn Z, Barker TH, Moola S, et al. Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2127-2133. doi:10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00099
Evans AJ, Brown RW, Bui MM, et al. Validating whole slide imaging systems for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline update from the College of American Pathologists in collaboration with the American Society for Clinical Pathology and the Association for Pathology Informatics. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021;18. doi:10.5858/arpa.2020-0723-CP. Online ahead of print.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
Agarwal S, Zhao L, Zhang R, Hassell L. Facetime validation study: low-cost streaming video for cytology adequacy assessment. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124(3):213-220. doi:10.1002/cncy.21636
Dixit S, Tanveer N, Kumar H, Diwan H. Smartphone-assisted telecytopathology: an intraobserver concordance study. Acta Cytol. 2020;64(5):399-405. doi:10.1159/000506145
Sunny S, Baby A, James BL, et al. A smart tele-cytology point-of-care platform for oral cancer screening. PLoS One. 2019;14(11):e0224885. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0224885
Dudas R, VandenBussche C, Baras A, Ali SZ, Olson MT. Inexpensive telecytology solutions that use the Raspberry Pi and the iPhone. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2014;3(1):49-55. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2013.09.005
Giansanti D, Pochini M, Giovagnoli MR. Integration of tablet technologies in the e-laboratory of cytology: a health technology assessment. Telemed J e-Health Off J Am Telemed Assoc. 2014;20(10):909-915. doi:10.1089/tmj.2013.0235
Machado RS, Richa R, Callegari F, et al. Instant messenger smartphone application for endosonographer/cytopathologist real-time interaction at a distance in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions. Endosc Int Open. 2019;07(08):E1027-E1030. doi:10.1055/a-0965-6631
Naqvi A, Manglik N, Dudrey E, Perry C, Mulla ZD, Cervantes JL. Evaluating the performance of a low-cost mobile phone attachable microscope in cervical cytology. BMC Womens Health. 2020;20(1):60. doi:10.1186/s12905-020-00902-0
Huang YN, Peng XC, Ma S, et al. Development of whole slide imaging on smartphones and evaluation with thinprep cytology test samples: follow-up study. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2018;6(4):1-13. doi:10.2196/mhealth.9518
Roy S, Hartman D, Pantanowitz L, et al. Smartphone adapters for digital photomicrography. J Pathol Inform. 2014;5(1):24. doi:10.4103/2153-3539.137728
Sahin D, Hacisalihoglu UP, Kirimlioglu SH. Telecytology: is it possible with smartphone images? Diagn Cytopathol. 2018;46(1):40-46. doi:10.1002/dc.23851
Skandarajah A, Sunny SP, Gurpur P, et al. Mobile microscopy as a screening tool for oral cancer in India: a pilot study. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):e0188440. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0188440
Bifalco K, Zarka M, Spiczka AW, et al. Facetime validation studies in an Academic Medical Center: applicable considerations for patient safety, IT security and workflow optimization. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015;4(6):S7-S7. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2015.09.016
Bocklage D, Napier D, Hallahan B, Sims L. TJ NFeasibility of assessing fresh tumor quality by real-time remote digital viewing via iPhones: a study of 195 cases. Biopreservation Biobanking. 2020;18(3):A8-A9.
Cox J, Lintel N, Braun AL, Lazenby AJ. Design and development of a 3D-printed apparatus to hold a smartphone for histologic examination and associated applications. Lab Invest. 2017;97(suppl 1):395A-395A.
Pantanowitz L, Ahmed I, Cuda J, Parwani A, Monaco S. “Cyto on the go”: can tablet devices support the mobility of cytology services. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015;4(6):S65-S65. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2015.09.160
Wimmer J, Dhurandhar B, Fairley T, et al. A novel smartphone-microscope camera adapter: an option for cytology consultation in low-resource environments. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2012;1(1):S124-S125. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2012.08.268
Howard J, Richards D. Comparison of newer microscope phone adapters for telecytology immediate assessment in an academic center. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2017;6(5):S53-S54. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2017.06.135
Kewlani S, Deepti JAP. Diagnostic accuracy of papanicolaou (PAP) smear reporting by MMS transmitted digitalised images versus conventional light microscopy. Australas Med J. 2012;5(1):102-103.
Miyazaki J, Nishiyama H. Epidemiology of urothelial carcinoma. Int J Urol. 2017;24(10):730-734. doi:10.1111/iju.13376
Kothari K, Tummidi S. This “rose” has no thorns-diagnostic utility of “rapid on-site evaluation” ( rose ) in fine needle aspiration cytology. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2019;10(December):688-698. doi:10.1007/s13193-019-00981-y
Nardi F, Basolo F, Crescenzi A, et al. Italian consensus for the classification and reporting of thyroid cytology. J Endocrinol Invest. 2014;37(6):593-599. doi:10.1007/s40618-014-0062-0
Rajchgot J, Coulibaly JT, Keiser J, et al. Mobile-phone and handheld microscopy for neglected tropical diseases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(7):4-7.