Lost in digitization - A systematic review about the diagnostic test accuracy of digital pathology solutions.

Diagnostic concordance Diagnostic test accuracy Human pathology Overdiagnosis Validation studies Whole slide imaging (WSI)

Journal

Journal of pathology informatics
ISSN: 2229-5089
Titre abrégé: J Pathol Inform
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101528849

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 03 06 2022
revised: 30 08 2022
accepted: 31 08 2022
entrez: 21 10 2022
pubmed: 22 10 2022
medline: 22 10 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Digital pathology solutions are increasingly implemented for primary diagnostics in departments of pathology around the world. This has sparked a growing engagement on validation studies to evaluate the diagnostic performance of whole slide imaging (WSI) regarding safety, reliability, and accuracy. The aim of this review was to evaluate the performance of digital pathology for diagnostic purposes compared to light microscopy (LM) in human pathology, based on validation studies designed to assess such technologies. In this systematic review based on PRISMA guidelines, we analyzed validation studies of WSI compared with LM. We included studies of diagnostic performance of WSI regarding diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) indicators, degree of overdiagnosis, diagnostic concordance, and observer variability as a secondary outcome. Overdiagnosis is (for example) detecting a pathological condition that will either not progress or progress very slowly. Thus, the patient will never get symptoms from this condition and the pathological condition will never be the cause of death. From a search comprising four databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, encompassing the period 2010-2021, we selected and screened 12 peer-reviewed articles that fulfilled our selection criteria. Risk of bias was conducted through QUADAS-2 tool, and data analysis and synthesis were performed in a qualitative format. We found that diagnostic performance of WSI was not inferior to LM for DTA indicators, concordance, and observer variability. The degree of overdiagnosis was not explicitly reported in any of the studies, while the term itself was used in one study and could be implicitly calculated in another. WSI had an overall high diagnostic accuracy based on traditional accuracy measurements; however, the degree of overdiagnosis is unknown.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36268077
doi: 10.1016/j.jpi.2022.100136
pii: S2153-3539(22)00730-1
pmc: PMC9577136
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

100136

Informations de copyright

© 2022 The Authors.

Références

Fed Regist. 2018 May 18;83(97):23212-8
pubmed: 30019868
Med J Aust. 2020 Mar;212(4):163-168
pubmed: 31858624
Am J Surg Pathol. 2012 Aug;36(8):1194-201
pubmed: 22790860
J Pathol Inform. 2018 Aug 27;9:29
pubmed: 30197818
Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):94-100
pubmed: 20078760
Cancer Cytopathol. 2020 Jan;128(1):17-28
pubmed: 31600035
J Pathol Inform. 2019 Mar 08;10:9
pubmed: 30984469
J Clin Pathol. 2019 Mar;72(3):198-205
pubmed: 29549217
APMIS. 2014 Aug;122(8):683-9
pubmed: 24862511
BMJ. 2019 Dec 6;367:l6817
pubmed: 31812943
Pathol Res Pract. 2014 Jun;210(6):377-82
pubmed: 24674453
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2018 Feb;23(1):1-3
pubmed: 29367314
Dig Liver Dis. 2019 Nov;51(11):1574-1579
pubmed: 31147212
Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2015 Jun;1(4):259-65
pubmed: 27354984
J Pathol Inform. 2019 Jan 24;10:2
pubmed: 30783546
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017 Jan;141(1):151-161
pubmed: 27399211
BMJ. 2015 Jan 02;350:g7647
pubmed: 25555855
Lancet Oncol. 2019 May;20(5):e253-e261
pubmed: 31044723
J Pathol Inform. 2018 Oct 09;9:34
pubmed: 30450263
Med Educ. 2005 Jan;39(1):98-106
pubmed: 15612906
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Acta Cytol. 2015;59(2):187-200
pubmed: 25967603
Virchows Arch. 2019 Mar;474(3):269-287
pubmed: 30685784
Acta Cytol. 2014;58(4):388-97
pubmed: 25033897
Telemed J E Health. 2021 May;27(5):525-531
pubmed: 32833582
J Biomed Inform. 2017 Feb;66:171-179
pubmed: 28087402
J Pathol Inform. 2017 Mar 10;8:12
pubmed: 28382226
J Med Ethics. 2016 Nov;42(11):717-719
pubmed: 27501787
Breathe (Sheff). 2020 Mar;16(1):200013
pubmed: 32194774
Hum Pathol. 2010 Dec;41(12):1770-6
pubmed: 20869750
Virchows Arch. 2021 Apr;478(4):747-756
pubmed: 33305338
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013 Dec;137(12):1710-22
pubmed: 23634907

Auteurs

Olsi Kusta (O)

Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5 opg. B, Building: 15-0-11, 1014 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE), Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.

Charlotte Vestrup Rift (CV)

Department of Pathology, Rigshospitalet (Copenhagen University Hospital), Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.

Torsten Risør (T)

Centre for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5 opg. Q, Building: 24-1, 1014 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Norwegian Centre for E-health Research, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.

Eric Santoni-Rugiu (E)

Department of Pathology, Rigshospitalet (Copenhagen University Hospital), Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.

John Brandt Brodersen (JB)

Centre for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5 opg. Q, Building: 24-1-21, 1014 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Primary Health Care Research Unit, Region Zealand, Øster Farimagsgade 5 opg. Q, Building: 24-1-21, 1014 Copenhagen, Denmark.

Classifications MeSH