Concordance, intra- and inter-observer agreements between light microscopy and whole slide imaging for samples acquired by EUS in pancreatic solid lesions

Artificial intelligence and frozen section histopathology: A systematic review

Frozen sections are a useful pathologic tool, but variable image quality may impede the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in their interpretation. We aimed to identify the current research on machine learning models trained or tested on frozen section images. We searched PubMed and Web of Science for articles presenting new machine learning models published in any year. Eighteen papers met all inclusion criteria. All papers presented at least one novel model trained or tested on frozen section images. Overall, convolutional neural networks tended to have the best performance. When physicians were able to view the output of the model, they tended to perform better than either the model or physicians alone at the tested task. Models trained on frozen sections performed well when tested on other slide preparations, but models trained on only formalin-fixed tissue performed significantly worse across other modalities. This suggests not only that machine learning can be applied to frozen section image processing, but also use of frozen section images may increase model generalizability. Additionally, expert physicians working in concert with artificial intelligence may be the future of frozen section histopathology.

Validating Whole Slide Imaging Systems for Diagnostic Purposes in Pathology

CONTEXT.—

The original guideline, "Validating Whole Slide Imaging for Diagnostic Purposes in Pathology," was published in 2013 and included 12 guideline statements. The College of American Pathologists convened an expert panel to update the guideline following standards established by the National Academies of Medicine for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVE.—

To assess evidence published since the release of the original guideline and provide updated recommendations for validating whole slide imaging (WSI) systems used for diagnostic purposes.

DESIGN.—

An expert panel performed a systematic review of the literature. Frozen sections, anatomic pathology specimens (biopsies, curettings, and resections), and hematopathology cases were included. Cytology cases were excluded. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, the panel reassessed and updated the original guideline recommendations.

RESULTS.—

Three strong recommendations and 9 good practice statements are offered to assist laboratories with validating WSI digital pathology systems.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Systematic review of literature following release of the 2013 guideline reaffirms the use of a validation set of at least 60 cases, establishing intraobserver diagnostic concordance between WSI and glass slides and the use of a 2-week washout period between modalities. Although all discordances between WSI and glass slide diagnoses discovered during validation need to be reconciled, laboratories should be particularly concerned if their overall WSI-glass slide concordance is less than 95%.

Diagnostic Pitfalls of Digital Microscopy Versus Light Microscopy in Gastrointestinal Pathology: A Systematic Review

Digital microscopy (DM) is one of the cutting-edge advances in pathology, which entails improved efficiency, diagnostic advantages, and potential application in virtual diagnosis, particularly in the current era of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the diagnostic challenges are the remaining concerns for its wider adoption by pathologists, and these concerns should be addressed in a specific subspecialty. We aim to identify the common diagnostic pitfalls of whole slide imaging (WSI), one modality of DM, in gastrointestinal (GI) pathology. From validating studies of primary diagnosis performance, we included 16 records with features on GI cases involved, at least two weeks wash-out periods, and more than 60 case study designs. A tailored quality appraisal assessment was utilized to evaluate the risks of bias for these diagnostic accuracy studies. Furthermore, due to the highly heterogeneous studies and unstandardized definition of discordance, we extract the discordant cases in GI pathology and calculate the discrepant rate, resulting from 0.5% to 64.28%. Targeting discrepancy cases between digital microscopy and light microscopy, we demonstrate five main diagnostic pitfalls regarding WSI as follows: additional time to review slides in WSI, hard to identify dysplasia nucleus, missed organisms like Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), specific cell recognitions, and technical issues. After detailed reviews and analysis, we generate two essential suggestions for further GI cases signing out by DM. One is to use systematized 20x scans for diagnostic workouts and requesting 40x or even 60x scans for challenging cases; another is that a high-volume slides training should be set before the real clinical application of WSI for primary diagnosis, particularly in GI pathology.