Whole slide imaging compared with light microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical neuropathology: a validation study

ORIGINAL ARTICLEWhole slide imaging compared with light microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical neuropathology: a validation study Ali Alassiri, Amna Almutrafi, Fahd Alsufiani, Atheer Al Nehkilan, Alaa Al Salim, Hesham Musleh, Mohammad Aziz, and Walid Khalbuss iDAli Alassiri Correspondence: Dr. Ali Alassiri · Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Department, College of Medicine, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, 11426 Saudi Arabia · T: +966-11-8011111 ext. 54143 · E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2550-5956 a From the Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Department, College of Medicine, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia b From the College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia c From the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Search for more papers by this author , Amna Almutrafi a From the Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Department, College of Medicine, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Search for more papers by this author , Fahd Alsufiani a From the Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Department, College of Medicine, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Search for more papers by this author , Atheer Al Nehkilan b From the College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Search for more papers by this author , Alaa Al Salim a From the Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Department, College of Medicine, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Search for more papers by this author , Hesham Musleh a From the Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Department, College of Medicine, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Search for more papers by this author , Mohammad Aziz a From the Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Department, College of Medicine, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Search for more papers by this author , and Walid Khalbuss a From the Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Department, College of Medicine, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Search for more papers by this author Published Online::6 Feb 2020https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2020.36SectionsPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail AboutABSTRACTABSTRACTBACKGROUND: Digital pathology practice is rapidly gaining popularity among practicing anatomic pathologists. Acceptance is higher among the newer generation of pathologists who are willing to adapt to this new diagnostic method due to the advantages offered by whole slide imaging (WSI) compared to traditional light microscopy (TLM). We performed this validation study because we plan to implement the WSI system for diagnostic services.OBJECTIVES: Determine the feasibility of using digital pathology for diagnostic services by assessing the equivalency of WSI and TLM.DESIGN: A laboratory-based cross-sectional study.SETTING: Central laboratory at a tertiary health care center.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four practicing surgical pathologists participated in this study. Each pathologist blindly reviewed 60 surgical neuropathology cases with a minimum 8-week washout-period between the two diagnostic modalities (WSI vs. TLM). Intraobserver concordance rates between WSI and TLM diagnoses as compared to the original diagnosis were calculated.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall intraobserver concordance rates between each diagnostic method (WSI and TLM) and original diagnosis.SAMPLE SIZE: 60 in-house surgical neuropathology cases.RESULTS: The overall intraobserver concordance rate between TLM and original diagnosis was 86.3% (range 76.7%-91.7%) versus 80.8% for WSI (range 68.3%-88.3%). These findings are suggestive of the superiority of TLM, but the Fleiss' Kappa statistic indicated that the two methods are equivalent, despite the low level of the K value.CONCLUSION: WSI is not inferior to the light microscopy and is feasible for primary diagnosis in surgical neuropathology. However, to ensure the best results, only formally trained neuropathologists should handle the digital neuropathology service.LIMITATIONS: Only one diagnostic slide per case rather than the whole set of slides, sample size was relatively small, and there was an insufficient number of participating neuropathologists.CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.Download FigureINTRODUCTIONDigitizing glass slides has revolutionized the practice of anatomical pathology, improving the diagnostic accuracy, turn around time, and outreach service coverage. Using slide scanners, glass slides are converted into digital slides rapidly accessible to the pathologist. This technology potentially enables neuropathologists to remotely provide an opinion during crucial intraoperative consultations.1 Digital pathology has the potential to deliver efficient and accurate clinical diagnosis to accommodate the rising needs for neuropathological services in under-privileged and remote areas. As a new practice, digital pathology may be an ideal solution to provide neuropathology consultation to laboratories without such expertise due to limited resources. Digitally scanned whole slide images may enable the neuropathologist to provide high-quality and fast primary or secondary diagnoses and improve patient care. Saudi Arabia has only ten formally trained and certified neuropathologists. Digital pathology, despite its challenges, may overcome this shortage by supporting the need for the deployment of a nationwide digital neuropathology services.Neuropathology frozen sections are stressful to general pathologists. Therefore, a digital pathology solution may be helpful. Fallon et al have shown a high correlation between frozen section slides and WSI with 52 ovarian frozen section diagnoses.2 This accuracy rate maybe similar to neuropathology frozen sections. Several studies concluded that WSI as a diagnostic modality is not inferior to TLM.2,5-21 Validation of the digital pathology system is required to ensure laboratory compliance with accrediting organizations such as the Joint Commission and College of American Pathologists (CAP) and to assure the accuracy of diagnosis. Validation studies have shown a high concordance rate between WSI and TLM in different sub-specialties of anatomical pathology.6,8-10,12,13,15,18 Digital pathology, for intraoperative consultations, primary/secondary diagnosis, multi-disciplinary meetings, and educational purposes, is already being used in some parts of the world (e.g. United States of America, Canada and parts of Europe).22-25 Furthermore, the recent approval of WSI for primary diagnosis by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should encourage the adoption of digital pathology for clinical purposes globally. The FDA considers WSI systems to consist of two subsystems: (1) the image acquisition component (ie, the scanner) and (2) the workstation (ie, the image viewing software, computer, and display). The FDA also considers this entire digital pathology system to be a closed unit precluding the substitution of unapproved components.26The current CAP guidelines recommend that all pathology departments adopting WSI for diagnosis should conduct their own validation. This is done by evaluation of at least 60 specimens to assess intraobserver variations in diagnoses between digital slides and glass slides, with a washout period of at least 2 weeks.27 In this study, we investigate the feasibility of WSI for diagnostic surgical neuropathology services at our center in Saudi Arabia.MATERIALS AND METHODSThis study was conducted in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The goal was primarily to validate the technology using the guidelines published by the College of American Pathologists and Laboratory Quality Center.1 The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC).Sixty recent surgical neuropathology cases were retrieved from the archives of our anatomic pathology division. The accuracy of the original diagnosis is ensured as the malignant cases were co-signed by two board certified neuropathologists per departmental policy while the benign lesions were considered straightforward and also diagnosed by a neuropathologist. Instead of scanning all slides for each case, the first author reviewed all slides and selected one diagnostic high quality slide from each case to simplify the methodology in order to guarantee participation from the limited number of study candidates. Additionally the one diagnostic slide approach has been used in several studies.2-4 The sixty selected cases covered a broad range of surgical neuropathological entities encountered at our institution. The original surgical pathology numbers were replaced by a study identifier (case number). The 60 diagnostic hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides were scanned using the Aperio scanner (ScanScope AT Turbo) at 40×.Four practicing surgical pathologists were carefully selected to participate in this study. One is board-certified in neuropathology while the others either received considerable exposure to neuropathology services during their residency training (6 months or more) or had sufficient expertise being senior pathologists (ranging between 25-40 years of general practice including neuropathology cases).Two pathologists at a time were given either a set of digital or glass slides independently as well as the clinical information available at the time of the original diagnosis. After a washout period of at least 8 weeks, the sets of slides were switched between the two pathologists. The same process was followed with the two remaining pathologists. For each pathologist, the glass slides were reviewed using their own light microscope and the digital slides were reviewed using a high-resolution large monitor.The diagnostic accuracy was based on whether or not a study diagnosis was clinically and significantly different from the original diagnosis. Diagnostic discrepancies were classified as major when there was a definite influence on clinical management/outcome and minor when there was little or no clinical significance. In keeping with the widely accepted definitions, a major discordance was defined as a difference in diagnosis that would be associated with a change in patient management. On the other hand, a minor discordance was defined as a difference in diagnosis that was not associated with a change in patient management. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.4 through the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics at KAIMRC.RESULTSThe overall intraobserver concordance rate between the original and TLM diagnoses was 86.3% (range 76.7%–91.7%) (Table 1) while the rate was slightly lower (80.8%, range 68.3%–88.3%) using the WSI diagnostic method (Table 2). This showed a 6% difference in favor of the TLM method. Using the statistical module (GEE) to predict which of the two methods was superior, the resultant odds ratio of 1.5 indicated a 50% greater chance in favor of the TLM method. The overall intra-observer concordance rate between TLM and WSI was 82.1% (Table 3).Table 1. Intraobserver concordance rates between TLM and original diagnoses by pathologist.Pathologist 1Pathologist 2Pathologist 3Pathologist 4Total (%)Concordant53 (88.3)46 (76.7)55 (91.7)53 (88.3)86.3Minor discordance3 (5)4 (6.7)4 (6.7)5 (8.3)6.7Major discordance4 (6.7)10 (16.7)1 (1.7)2 (3.3)7.1Data are number (%).Table 2. Intraobserver concordance rates between WSI and original diagnoses by pathologist.Pathologist 1Pathologist 2Pathologist 3Pathologist 4Total (%)Concordant49 (81.7)41 (68.3)51 (85)53 (88.3)80.8Minor discordance2 (3.3)8 (13.3)7 (11.7)7 (11.7)10Major discordance9 (15)11 (18.3)2 (3.3)09.2Data are number (%).Table 3. Intraobserver concordance rates between TLM and WSI diagnoses by pathologist.Pathologist 1Pathologist 2Pathologist 3Pathologist 4Total (%)Concordant49 (81.7)43 (71.7)52 (86.7)53 (88.3)82.1Minor discordance2 (3.3)7 (11.7)5 (8.3)5 (8.3)7.9Major discordance9 (15)10 (16.7)3 (5)2 (3.3)10Data are number (%).There appeared to be a minor superiority for TLM over WSI so we generated the Fleiss kappa statistic for multi-rater agreement using bootstrapping with five subject replacement for each method 1000 times. In each of the samples, a Fleiss kappa statistic was generated for each method and an average Kappa (K) was calculated. The result showed an almost equal level of intraobserver agreement between the TLM with a K value (mean and standard deviation) of 0.14 (0.07) and the WSI with a K value of 0.20 (0.06). There was a nonsignificant difference in the standard error (P=.007) between the two Kappa means which indicates equivalency between the two methods even though the K value was low. The original diagnosis for each of the 60 cases is shown in Table 4.Table 4. Original diagnoses for the 60 cases.Case #Original diagnosis1Vasculitis with fibrinoid necrosis2Meningioma (psammomatous)3Metastatic renal cell carcinoma4Medulloblastoma (desmoplastic/nodular)5Lymphoma (PTLD c/w DLBCL)6Meningioma (brain invasive)7Ependymoma8Pituitary adenoma9Colloid cyst10Anaplastic ependymoma11Choroid plexus papilloma12Chordoma13Medulloblastoma (large cell/anaplastic)14Craniopharyngioma15Meningioma (microcystic)16Medulloblastoma (classic)17Metastatic colonic adenocarcinoma18Hemangioblastoma19Myxopapillary ependymoma20Diffuse gliomas (oligodendroglioma)21Schwannoma22Caseating granuloma (tuberculoma)23Cavernoma24Pilocytic astrocytoma25Diffuse gliomas (astrocytoma)26Glioblastoma27Meningioma28Brain abscess29Germinoma30Anaplastic meningioma31Lymphoma (DLBCL)32Pilocytic astrocytoma33Craniopharyngioma34Pineoblastoma35Langerhans cell histiocytosis36Hemangiopericytoma37Dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor38Pituitary adenoma39Glioblastoma (giant cell)40Central neurocytoma41Anaplastic ependymoma42Spinal cord schistosomiasis43Diffuse glioma (oligodendroglioma)44Central neurocytoma (atypical)45Meningioma (microcystic)46Meningioma (chordoid)47Diffuse glioma (oligodendroglioma)48Metastatic melanoma49Metastatic choriocarcinoma50Meningioma (chordoid)51Glioblastoma (gliosarcoma)52Meningioma (secretory)53Medulloblastoma (large cell/anaplastic)54Embryonal tumor with multilayered rosettes (ependymoblastoma)55Craniopharyngioma56Occipital encephalocele57Glioblastoma58Hemangioblastoma59Meningocele60Diffuse glioma (oligodendroglioma)PTLD=Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder; DLBCL=Diffuse large B cell lymphoma.DISCUSSIONFollowing the current CAP with comprehensive statistics, we confirmed the validity of using digital pathology for the practice of surgical neuropathology. This finding supports the results of a relatively recent systematic review and the multicenter blinded randomized study by Mukhopadhyay et al.20 Additionally, intraobserver variability in concordance rates ranged from 68.3% to 88.3% for WSI and 76.7% to 91.7% for TLM with the highest rates for WSI achieved by pathologist 4 (neuropathologist) who also scored high for TLM. In our study, the total major discordance rate for WSI was 2.1% higher than TLM which is higher than the 0.4% reported by Mukhopadhyay et al.20 Interestingly, there was zero percent major discordance rates for WSI by pathologist 4, a board-certified neuropathologist. None of the participating pathologists received prior training to use the WSI for primary diagnosis.The literature related to digital pathology in the context of surgical neuropathology is scarce. Pekmezci et al identified two potential pitfalls (identification of mitoses and recognition of nuclear details). These pitfalls could limit the utility of WSI for accurate diagnosis and grading of tumors in surgical neuropathology.2 However, in our study, those pitfalls reported by Pekmezci et al were not substantiated. After careful review of digitized slides we found that all discordant cases were attributed to misinterpretation as the image quality was good enough to appreciate the cytological details and to recognize mitotic figures (Figure 1A-D).Figure 1. (whole slide images of four discrepant cases): A. Atypical central neurocytoma showing one readily recognized mitotic figure (green arrow) B. Diffuse astrocytoma misdiagnosed as gliosis. C. Microcystic/angiomatous meningioma misdiagnosed as clear cell meningioma. D. Dysembryoplastic neuropithelial tumor (DNET) with several floating neurons misdiagnosed as oligodendroglioma.Download FigureOur study evaluated the accuracy of both diagnostic modalities, but not the efficiency in terms of interpretative time for digital images versus glass slides. Mills et al investigated the efficiency of digital pathology compared to glass slide interpretation. Reading pathologists recorded assessment times for each modality. Initially, the digital read was slower than the microscopy but at the end of their study, the digital read was comparable to the optical times.28 The strengths of our study include the blinded design, the inclusion of an extended wash-out period and the participation of four pathologists with variable expertise, one of whom is a neuropathologist. In terms of limitations, we acknowledge the small sample size, the provision of only one diagnostic slides instead of the whole set, and the lack of a sufficient number of participating neuropathologists. The lack of access to the patient's records or ancillary testing results is compensated by the provision of the diagnostic H&E slides with the accompanying brief clinical histories.WSI as a diagnostic modality is not inferior to TLM and gradual transitioning into digital pathology is possible with close monitoring and sufficient training. The pre-analytical phase should be well controlled with quality H&E slides. However, to ensure the best results, only formally trained neuropathologists should handle the digital neuropathology service.ARTICLE REFERENCES:1. Fallon Margaret A., Wilbur David C., Prasad Manju. "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 Med2010; 134:1020-23. Google Scholar2. Pekmezci Melike, Uysal Sanem Pinar, Orhan Yelda, Tihan Tarik, and Lee Han Sung. "Pitfalls in the use of whole slide imaging for the diagnosis of central nervous system tumors: A pilot study in surgical neuropathology." J Pathol Inform2016; 7:25. Google Scholar3. Cai G, Parwani AV, Khalbuss WE, Yu J, Monaco SE, Jukic DM, et al.. "Cytological Evaluation of Image-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsies via Robotic Microscopy: A Validation Study." J Patho Inform2010; 26:4. Google Scholar4. House JC, Henderson-Jackson EB, Johnson JO, Lloyd MC, Dhillon J, Ahmad N, et al.. "Diagnostic digital cytopathology: Are we ready yet?." J Pathol Inform2013; 29:28 Google Scholar5. Lowe Amanda, Chlipala Elizabeth, Elin Jesus, Kawano Yoshihiro, Long Richard E., Tillman Debbie. "Validation of digital pathology in a healthcare environment." Conference: Digital Pathology Association, San Diego, CA. 2011. Google Scholar6. Camparo P, Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM, Boccon-Gibod L, Comperat E, et al.. "Utility of whole slide imaging and virtual microscopy in prostate pathology." APMIS2012; 120:298-304. Google Scholar7. Bauer Thomas W., Schoenfield Lynn, Slaw Renee J., Yerian Lisa, Sun Zhiyuan, Henricks Walter H.. "Validation of whole slide imaging for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology." Arch Pathol Lab Med2012; 137:518-24. Google Scholar8. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Vink A, Leguit RJ, Offerhaus GJ, ten Kate FJ, et al.. "Whole slide images for primary diagnostics of gastrointestinal tract pathology: a feasibility study." Hum Pathol2012; 43:702-7. Google Scholar9. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Willems SM, Van Diest PJ. "Digital slide images for primary diagnostics in breast pathology: a feasibility study." Hum Pathol2012; 43:2318-25. Google Scholar10. van der Post RS, van der Laak JA, Sturm B, Clarijs R, Schaafsma HE, van Krieken JH, Nap M. "The evaluation of colon biopsies using virtual microscopy is reliable." Histopathology2013; 63:114-21. Google Scholar11. Buck Thomas P., Dilorio Rebecca, Havrilla Lauren, O'Neill Dennis G.. "Validation of a whole slide imaging system for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology: A community hospital experience." J Pathol Inform2014 28;5:43. Google Scholar12. Campbell WS, Hinrichs SH, Lele SM, Baker JJ, Lazenby AJ, Talmon GA, Smith LM, et al.. "Whole slide imaging diagnostic concordance with light microscopy for breast needle biopsies." Hum Pathol2014; 45:1713-21. Google Scholar13. Ordi J, Castillo P, Saco A, Del Pino M, Ordi O, Rodríguez-Carunchio L, Ramirez J. "Validation of whole slide imaging in the primary diagnosis of gynaecological pathology in a University Hospital." J Clin Pathol2015; 68:33-9. Google Scholar14. Thrall MJ, Wimmer JL, Schwartz MR. "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 Med2015; 139:656-64. Google Scholar15. Arnold MA, Chenever E, Baker PB, Boue DR, Fung B, Hammond S, et al.. "The College of American Pathologists guidelines for whole slide imaging validation are feasible for pediatric pathology: a pediatric pathology practice experience." Pediatr Dev Pathol2015; 18:109-16. Google Scholar16. Houghton Joseph P, Ervine Aaron J, Kenny Sarah L, Kelly Paul J, Napier Seamus S, McCluggage W Glenn, et al.. "Concordance between digital pathology and light microscopy in general surgical pathology: a pilot study of 100 cases." J Clin Pathol2014; 67:1052–55. Google Scholar17. Snead DR, Tsang YW, Meskiri A, Kimani PK, Crossman R, Rajpoot NM, et al.. "Validation of digital pathology imaging for primary histopathological diagnosis." Histopathology2016; 68:1063-72. Google Scholar18. Shah KK, Lehman JS, Gibson LE, Lohse CM, Comfere NI, Wieland CN. "Validation of diagnostic accuracy with whole-slide imaging compared with glass slide review in dermatopathology." J Am Acad Dermatol2016; 75:1229-37. Google Scholar19. Saco A, Ramírez J, Rakislova N, Mira A, Ordi J. "Validation of Whole-Slide Imaging for Histopathological Diagnosis: Current State." Pathobiology2016; 83:89-98. Google Scholar20. Mukhopadhyay S, Feldman , Abels E, Ashfaq R, Beltaifa S, Cacciabeve NG, et al.. "Whole Slide Imaging Versus Microscopy for Primary Diagnosis in Surgical Pathology: A Multicenter Blinded Randomized Noninferiority Study of 1992 Cases (Pivotal Study)." Am J Surg Pathol2018; 42:39-52. Google Scholar21. Mills AM, Gradecki SE, Horton BJ, Blackwell R, Moskaluk CA, Mandell JW, et al.. "Diagnostic Efficiency in Digital Pathology: A Comparison of Optical Versus Digital Assessment in 510 Surgical Pathology Cases." Am J Surg Pathol. 2018; 42:53-9. Google Scholar22. Evans AJ, Salama ME, Henricks WH, Pantanowitz L. "Implementation of Whole Slide Imaging for Clinical Purposes: Issues to Consider From the Perspective of Early Adopters." Arch Pathol Lab Med2017; 141:944-59. Google Scholar23. Tetu B, Evans A. "Canadian Licensure for the Use of Digital Pathology for Routine Diagnoses." Arch Pathol Lab Med2014; 138:302-4. Google Scholar24. Thorstenson S, Molin J, Lundstrom C. "Implementation of large-scale routine diagnostics using whole slide imaging in Sweden: Digital pathology experiences 2006-2013." J Pathol Inform2014; 5:14. Google Scholar25. Stathonikos N, Veta M, Huisman A, van Diest PJ. "Going fully digital: Perspective of a Dutch academic pathology lab." J Pathol Inform2013; 4:15. Google Scholar26. Evans AJ, Bauer TW, Bui MM, Cornish TC, Duncan H, Glassy EF, et al.. "US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Whole Slide Imaging for Primary Diagnosis: A Key Milestone Is Reached and New Questions Are Raised." Arch Pathol Lab Med2018; 142:1383-87. Google Scholar27. Pantanowitz L, Sinard JH, Henricks WH, Fatheree LA, Carter AB, Contis L, et al.. "Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center." Arch Pathol Lab Med2013; 137:1710-22. Google Scholar28. Mills AM, Gradecki SE, Horton BJ, Blackwell R, Moskaluk CA, Mandell JW, et al.. "Diagnostic Efficiency in Digital Pathology: A Comparison of Optical Versus Digital Assessment in 510 Surgical Pathology Cases." Am J Surg Pathol2018; 42:53-9. Google Scholar Previous article Next article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 40, Issue 1January-February 2020 Metrics History Received5 October 2019Accepted2 November 2019Published online6 February 2020 Funding None. InformationCopyright © 2020, Annals of Saudi Medicine, Saudi ArabiaThis is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND). The details of which can be accessed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/PDF download