liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A Systematic Analysis of Discordant Diagnoses in Digital Pathology Compared With Light Microscopy
University of Leeds, England.
Airedale NHS Fdn Trust, England.
University of Leeds, England.
Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Division of Neuro and Inflammation Science. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Leeds, England.
2017 (English)In: Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, ISSN 0003-9985, E-ISSN 1543-2165, Vol. 141, no 12, p. 1712-1718Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Context.-Relatively little is known about the significance and potential impact of glass-digital discordances, and this is likely to be of importance when considering digital pathology adoption. Objective.-To apply evidence-based medicine to collect and analyze reported instances of glass-digital discordance from the whole slide imaging validation literature. Design.-We used our prior systematic review protocol to identify studies assessing the concordance of light microscopy and whole slide imaging between 1999 and 2015. Data were extracted and analyzed by a team of histopathologists to classify the type, significance, and potential root cause of discordances. Results.-Twenty-three studies were included, yielding 8069 instances of a glass diagnosis being compared with a digital diagnosis. From these 8069 comparisons, 335 instances of discordance (4%) were reported, in which glass was the preferred diagnostic medium in 286 (85%), and digital in 44 (13%), with no consensus in 5 (2%). Twenty-eight discordances had the potential to cause moderate/severe patient harm. Of these, glass was the preferred diagnostic medium for 26 (93%). Of the 335 discordances, 109 (32%) involved the diagnosis or grading of dysplasia. For these cases, glass was the preferred diagnostic medium in 101 cases (93%), suggesting that diagnosis and grading of dysplasia may be a potential pitfall of digital diagnosis. In 32 of 335 cases (10%), discordance on digital was attributed to the inability to find a small diagnostic/prognostic object. Conclusions.-Systematic analysis of concordance studies reveals specific areas that may be problematic on whole slide imaging. It is important that pathologists are aware of these areas to ensure patient safety.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
COLL AMER PATHOLOGISTS , 2017. Vol. 141, no 12, p. 1712-1718
National Category
Cancer and Oncology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-143929DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0494-OAISI: 000417032300014PubMedID: 28467215OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-143929DiVA, id: diva2:1169787
Available from: 2017-12-29 Created: 2017-12-29 Last updated: 2017-12-29

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Treanor, Darren
By organisation
Division of Neuro and Inflammation ScienceFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
In the same journal
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
Cancer and Oncology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 46 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf