Discrepancies in digital hematopathology diagnoses for consultation and expert panel analysis

Technical and Diagnostic Issues in Whole Slide Imaging Published Validation Studies

Objective

Digital pathology with whole-slide imaging (WSI) has many potential clinical and non-clinical applications. In the past two decades, despite significant advances in WSI technology adoption remains slow for primary diagnosis. The aim of this study was to identify common pitfalls of WSI reported in validation studies and offer measures to overcome these challenges.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in the electronic databases Pubmed-MEDLINE and Embase. Inclusion criteria were all validation studies designed to evaluate the feasibility of WSI for diagnostic clinical use in pathology. Technical and diagnostic problems encountered with WSI in these studies were recorded.

Results

A total of 45 studies were identified in which technical issues were reported in 15 (33%), diagnostic issues in 8 (18%), and 22 (49%) reported both. Key technical problems encompassed slide scan failure, prolonged time for pathologists to review cases, and a need for higher image resolution. Diagnostic challenges encountered were concerned with grading dysplasia, reliable assessment of mitoses, identification of microorganisms, and clearly defining the invasive front of tumors.

Conclusion

Despite technical advances with WSI technology, some critical concerns remain that need to be addressed to ensure trustworthy clinical diagnostic use. More focus on the quality of the pre-scanning phase and training of pathologists could help reduce the negative impact of WSI technical difficulties. WSI also seems to exacerbate specific diagnostic tasks that are already challenging among pathologists even when examining glass slides with conventional light microscopy.

Validation of digital microscopy: Review of validation methods and sources of bias

Digital microscopy (DM) is increasingly replacing traditional light microscopy (LM) for performing routine diagnostic and research work in human and veterinary pathology. The DM workflow encompasses specimen preparation, whole-slide image acquisition, slide retrieval, and the workstation, each of which has the potential (depending on the technical parameters) to introduce limitations and artifacts into microscopic examination by pathologists. Performing validation studies according to guidelines established in human pathology ensures that the best-practice approaches for patient care are not deteriorated by implementing DM. Whereas current publications on validation studies suggest an overall high reliability of DM, each laboratory is encouraged to perform an individual validation study to ensure that the DM workflow performs as expected in the respective clinical or research environment. With the exception of validation guidelines developed by the College of American Pathologists in 2013 and its update in 2021, there is no current review of the application of methods fundamental to validation. We highlight that there is high methodological variation between published validation studies, each having advantages and limitations. The diagnostic concordance rate between DM and LM is the most relevant outcome measure, which is influenced (regardless of the viewing modality used) by different sources of bias including complexity of the cases examined, diagnostic experience of the study pathologists, and case recall. Here, we review 3 general study designs used for previous publications on DM validation as well as different approaches for avoiding bias.