Diagnostic validation of a portable whole slide imaging scanner for lymphoma diagnosis in resource-constrained setting: A cross-sectional study.
BL, Burkitt Lymphoma
CAP, College of American Pathologists
DLBCL, Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma
GSM, Glass slide microscopy
H&E, Hematoxylin and Eosin staining
HL, Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
IHC, Immunohistochemistry
LMICs, Low-and-middle income countries
Lymphoma diagnosis
NPV, Negative predictive value
PPV, Positive predictive value
Portable whole slide imaging scanner
Resource-limited setting
Validation
WSI, Whole slide imaging
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:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
08
12
2022
revised:
04
01
2023
accepted:
05
01
2023
entrez:
30
1
2023
pubmed:
31
1
2023
medline:
31
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Telepathology utilizing high-throughput static whole slide image scanners is proposed to address the challenge of limited pathology services in resource-restricted settings. However, the prohibitive equipment costs and sophisticated technologies coupled with large amounts of space to set up the devices make it impractical for use in resource-limited settings. Herein, we aimed to address this challenge by validating a portable whole slide imaging (WSI) device against glass slide microscopy (GSM) using lymph node biopsies from suspected lymphoma cases from Sub-Saharan Africa. This was part of a multicenter prospective case-control head-to-head comparison study of liquid biopsy against conventional pathology. For the portable WSI scanner validation, the study pathologists evaluated 105 surgical lymph node specimens initially confirmed by gold-standard pathology between February and December 2021. The tissues were processed according to standard protocols for Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) and Immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining by well-trained histotechnicians, then digitalized the H& E and IHC slides at each center. The digital images were anonymized and uploaded to a HIPAA-compliant server by the histotechnicians. Three study pathologists independently accessed and reviewed the images after a 6-week washout. The agreement between diagnoses established on GSM and WSI across the pathologists was described and measured using Cohens' kappa coefficient (κ). On GSM, 65.5% (n=84) of specimens were lymphoma; 25% were classified as benign, while 9.5% were metastatic. Morphological quality assessment on GSM and WSI established that 79.8% and 53.6% of cases were of high quality, respectively. When diagnoses by GSM were compared to WSI, the overall concordance for various diagnostic categories was 93%, 100%, and 86% for lymphoma, metastases, and benign conditions respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of WSI for the detection of lymphoma were 95.2% and 85.7%, respectively, with an overall inter-observer agreement (κ) of 0.86; 95% CI (0.70-0.95). We demonstrate that mobile whole slide imaging (WSI) is non-inferior to conventional glass slide microscopy (GSM) for the primary diagnosis of malignant infiltration of lymph node specimens. Our results further provide proof of concept that mobile WSI can be adapted to resource-restricted settings for primary surgical pathology and would significantly improve patient outcomes.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Telepathology utilizing high-throughput static whole slide image scanners is proposed to address the challenge of limited pathology services in resource-restricted settings. However, the prohibitive equipment costs and sophisticated technologies coupled with large amounts of space to set up the devices make it impractical for use in resource-limited settings. Herein, we aimed to address this challenge by validating a portable whole slide imaging (WSI) device against glass slide microscopy (GSM) using lymph node biopsies from suspected lymphoma cases from Sub-Saharan Africa.
Material and methods
UNASSIGNED
This was part of a multicenter prospective case-control head-to-head comparison study of liquid biopsy against conventional pathology. For the portable WSI scanner validation, the study pathologists evaluated 105 surgical lymph node specimens initially confirmed by gold-standard pathology between February and December 2021. The tissues were processed according to standard protocols for Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) and Immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining by well-trained histotechnicians, then digitalized the H& E and IHC slides at each center. The digital images were anonymized and uploaded to a HIPAA-compliant server by the histotechnicians. Three study pathologists independently accessed and reviewed the images after a 6-week washout. The agreement between diagnoses established on GSM and WSI across the pathologists was described and measured using Cohens' kappa coefficient (κ).
Results
UNASSIGNED
On GSM, 65.5% (n=84) of specimens were lymphoma; 25% were classified as benign, while 9.5% were metastatic. Morphological quality assessment on GSM and WSI established that 79.8% and 53.6% of cases were of high quality, respectively. When diagnoses by GSM were compared to WSI, the overall concordance for various diagnostic categories was 93%, 100%, and 86% for lymphoma, metastases, and benign conditions respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of WSI for the detection of lymphoma were 95.2% and 85.7%, respectively, with an overall inter-observer agreement (κ) of 0.86; 95% CI (0.70-0.95).
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
We demonstrate that mobile whole slide imaging (WSI) is non-inferior to conventional glass slide microscopy (GSM) for the primary diagnosis of malignant infiltration of lymph node specimens. Our results further provide proof of concept that mobile WSI can be adapted to resource-restricted settings for primary surgical pathology and would significantly improve patient outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36714453
doi: 10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100188
pii: S2153-3539(23)00002-0
pmc: PMC9874079
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100188Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None declared.
Références
J Pathol Inform. 2021 Sep 16;12:33
pubmed: 34760330
J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2014 Sep;18(Suppl 1):S111-6
pubmed: 25364159
J Clin Diagn Res. 2013 Oct;7(10):2408-13
pubmed: 24298546
J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(5):222-5
pubmed: 21565844
Lancet. 2018 May 12;391(10133):1927-1938
pubmed: 29550029
J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2013 Sep;17(3):397-401
pubmed: 24574659
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015 Jan;139(1):126-32
pubmed: 24963539
Clin Lab Med. 2018 Mar;38(1):141-150
pubmed: 29412878
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Apr;14(4):e152-7
pubmed: 23561746
PLoS One. 2022 Apr 14;17(4):e0266649
pubmed: 35421156
Br J Haematol. 2011 Sep;154(6):770-6
pubmed: 21718280
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
BMC Cancer. 2022 May 2;22(1):484
pubmed: 35501771
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013 Dec;137(12):1710-22
pubmed: 23634907
Glob Health Action. 2017 Jun;10(sup3):1344046
pubmed: 28838308
Med Image Anal. 2016 Oct;33:170-175
pubmed: 27423409
J Glob Oncol. 2016 Jan 20;2(2):76-82
pubmed: 28717686
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011 Feb;135(2):211-4
pubmed: 21284440
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Histopathology. 1998 Aug;33(2):99-106
pubmed: 9762541
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015 May;139(5):656-64
pubmed: 25927149
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011 Feb;135(2):191-3
pubmed: 21284436
Br J Haematol. 2011 Sep;154(6):696-703
pubmed: 21707579
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013 Jun;137(6):752-5
pubmed: 23721269
Vet Pathol. 2019 Jan;56(1):39-42
pubmed: 30131009