Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis
Background: The quality and limitations of digital slides are not fully known. We aimed to estimate intrapathologist discrepancy in detecting specific microscopic features on glass slides and digital slides created by scanning at ×20. Methods: Hematoxylin and eosin and periodic acid-Schiff glass sli...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2016-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Pathology Informatics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.jpathinformatics.org/article.asp?issn=2153-3539;year=2016;volume=7;issue=1;spage=30;epage=30;aulast=Vyas |
| _version_ | 1817979047359021056 |
|---|---|
| author | Nikki S Vyas Michael Markow Carlos Prieto-Granada Sudeep Gaudi Leslie Turner Paul Rodriguez-Waitkus Jane L Messina Drazen M Jukic |
| author_facet | Nikki S Vyas Michael Markow Carlos Prieto-Granada Sudeep Gaudi Leslie Turner Paul Rodriguez-Waitkus Jane L Messina Drazen M Jukic |
| author_sort | Nikki S Vyas |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: The quality and limitations of digital slides are not fully known. We aimed to estimate intrapathologist discrepancy in detecting specific microscopic features on glass slides and digital slides created by scanning at ×20. Methods: Hematoxylin and eosin and periodic acid-Schiff glass slides were digitized using the Mirax Scan (Carl Zeiss Inc., Germany). Six pathologists assessed 50-71 digital slides. We recorded objective magnification, total time, and detection of the following: Mast cells; eosinophils; plasma cells; pigmented macrophages; melanin in the epidermis; fungal bodies; neutrophils; civatte bodies; parakeratosis; and sebocytes. This process was repeated using the corresponding glass slides after 3 weeks. The diagnosis was not required. Results: The mean time to assess digital slides was 176.77 s and 137.61 s for glass slides (P < 0.001, 99% confidence interval [CI]). The mean objective magnification used to detect features using digital slides was 18.28 and 14.07 for glass slides (P < 0.001, 99.99% CI). Parakeratosis, civatte bodies, pigmented macrophages, melanin in the epidermis, mast cells, eosinophils, plasma cells, and neutrophils, were identified at lower objectives on glass slides (P = 0.023-0.001, 95% CI). Average intraobserver concordance ranged from κ = 0.30 to κ = 0.78. Features with poor to fair average concordance were: Melanin in the epidermis (κ = 0.15-0.58); plasma cells (κ = 0.15-0.49); and neutrophils (κ = 0.12-0.48). Features with moderate average intrapathologist concordance were: parakeratosis (κ = 0.21-0.61); civatte bodies (κ = 0.21-0.71); pigment-laden macrophages (κ = 0.34-0.66); mast cells (κ = 0.29-0.78); and eosinophils (κ = 0.31-0.79). The average intrapathologist concordance was good for sebocytes (κ = 0.51-1.00) and fungal bodies (κ = 0.47-0.76). Conclusions: Telepathology using digital slides scanned at ×20 is sufficient for detection of histopathologic features routinely encountered in dermatitis cases, though less efficient than glass slides. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T22:37:55Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-278352bac69145edb07b413f12c28d49 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2153-3539 2153-3539 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T22:37:55Z |
| publishDate | 2016-01-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Pathology Informatics |
| spelling | doaj.art-278352bac69145edb07b413f12c28d492022-12-22T02:26:42ZengElsevierJournal of Pathology Informatics2153-35392153-35392016-01-0171303010.4103/2153-3539.186909Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitisNikki S VyasMichael MarkowCarlos Prieto-GranadaSudeep GaudiLeslie TurnerPaul Rodriguez-WaitkusJane L MessinaDrazen M JukicBackground: The quality and limitations of digital slides are not fully known. We aimed to estimate intrapathologist discrepancy in detecting specific microscopic features on glass slides and digital slides created by scanning at ×20. Methods: Hematoxylin and eosin and periodic acid-Schiff glass slides were digitized using the Mirax Scan (Carl Zeiss Inc., Germany). Six pathologists assessed 50-71 digital slides. We recorded objective magnification, total time, and detection of the following: Mast cells; eosinophils; plasma cells; pigmented macrophages; melanin in the epidermis; fungal bodies; neutrophils; civatte bodies; parakeratosis; and sebocytes. This process was repeated using the corresponding glass slides after 3 weeks. The diagnosis was not required. Results: The mean time to assess digital slides was 176.77 s and 137.61 s for glass slides (P < 0.001, 99% confidence interval [CI]). The mean objective magnification used to detect features using digital slides was 18.28 and 14.07 for glass slides (P < 0.001, 99.99% CI). Parakeratosis, civatte bodies, pigmented macrophages, melanin in the epidermis, mast cells, eosinophils, plasma cells, and neutrophils, were identified at lower objectives on glass slides (P = 0.023-0.001, 95% CI). Average intraobserver concordance ranged from κ = 0.30 to κ = 0.78. Features with poor to fair average concordance were: Melanin in the epidermis (κ = 0.15-0.58); plasma cells (κ = 0.15-0.49); and neutrophils (κ = 0.12-0.48). Features with moderate average intrapathologist concordance were: parakeratosis (κ = 0.21-0.61); civatte bodies (κ = 0.21-0.71); pigment-laden macrophages (κ = 0.34-0.66); mast cells (κ = 0.29-0.78); and eosinophils (κ = 0.31-0.79). The average intrapathologist concordance was good for sebocytes (κ = 0.51-1.00) and fungal bodies (κ = 0.47-0.76). Conclusions: Telepathology using digital slides scanned at ×20 is sufficient for detection of histopathologic features routinely encountered in dermatitis cases, though less efficient than glass slides.http://www.jpathinformatics.org/article.asp?issn=2153-3539;year=2016;volume=7;issue=1;spage=30;epage=30;aulast=VyasDermatitisdermatopathologydigital slideshistologic featuresmicroscopic features |
| spellingShingle | Nikki S Vyas Michael Markow Carlos Prieto-Granada Sudeep Gaudi Leslie Turner Paul Rodriguez-Waitkus Jane L Messina Drazen M Jukic Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis Journal of Pathology Informatics Dermatitis dermatopathology digital slides histologic features microscopic features |
| title | Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis |
| title_full | Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis |
| title_fullStr | Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis |
| title_short | Comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis |
| title_sort | comparing whole slide digital images versus traditional glass slides in the detection of common microscopic features seen in dermatitis |
| topic | Dermatitis dermatopathology digital slides histologic features microscopic features |
| url | http://www.jpathinformatics.org/article.asp?issn=2153-3539;year=2016;volume=7;issue=1;spage=30;epage=30;aulast=Vyas |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nikkisvyas comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis AT michaelmarkow comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis AT carlosprietogranada comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis AT sudeepgaudi comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis AT leslieturner comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis AT paulrodriguezwaitkus comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis AT janelmessina comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis AT drazenmjukic comparingwholeslidedigitalimagesversustraditionalglassslidesinthedetectionofcommonmicroscopicfeaturesseenindermatitis |