Search

Context.—: Despite several studies focusing on the validation of whole slide imaging (WSI) across organ systems or subspecialties, the use of WSI for specific primary diagnosis tasks has been underexamined., Objective.—: To assess pathologist performance for the histologic subtyping of individual sections of ovarian carcinomas using a light microscope and WSI., Design.—: A panel of 3 experienced gynecologic pathologists provided reference subtype diagnoses for 212 histologic sections from 109 ovarian carcinomas based on optical microscopy review. Two additional attending pathologists provided diagnoses and also identified the presence of a set of 8 histologic features important for ovarian tumor subtyping. Two experienced gynecologic pathologists and 2 fellows reviewed the corresponding WSI images for subtype classification and feature identification., Results.—: Across pathologists specialized in gynecologic pathology, concordance with the reference diagnosis for the 5 major ovarian carcinoma subtypes was significantly higher for a pathologist reading on a microscope than each of 2 pathologists reading on WSI. Differences were primarily due to more frequent classification of mucinous carcinomas as endometrioid with WSI. Pathologists had generally low agreement in identifying histologic features important to ovarian tumor subtype classification with either an optical microscopy or WSI. This result suggests the need for refined histologic criteria for identifying such features. Interobserver agreement was particularly low for identifying intracytoplasmic mucin with WSI. Inconsistencies in evaluating nuclear atypia and mitoses with WSI were also observed., Conclusions.—: Further research is needed to specify the reasons for these diagnostic challenges and to inform users and manufacturers of WSI technology.

* Context.--Clinical decision support (CDS) systems could assist less experienced pathologists with certain diagnostic tasks for which subspecialty training or extensive experience is typically needed. The effect of decision support on pathologist performance for such diagnostic tasks has not been examined. Objective.--To examine the impact of a CDS tool for the classification of ovarian carcinoma subtypes by pathology trainees in a pilot observer study using digital pathology. Design.--Histologic review on 90 whole slide images from 75 ovarian cancer patients was conducted by 6 pathology residents using: (1) unaided review of whole slide images, and (2) aided review, where in addition to whole slide images observers used a CDS tool that provided information about the presence of 8 histologic features important for subtype classification that were identified previously by an expert in gynecologic pathology. The reference standard of ovarian subtype consisted of majority consensus from a panel of 3 gynecologic pathology experts. Results.--Aided review improved pairwise concordance with the reference standard for 5 of 6 observers by 3.3% to 17.8% (for 2 observers, increase was statistically significant) and mean interobserver agreement by 9.2% (not statistically significant). Observers benefited the most when the CDS tool prompted them to look for missed histologic features that were definitive for a certain subtype. Observer performance varied widely across cases with unanimous and nonunanimous reference classification, supporting the need for balancing data sets in terms of case difficulty. Conclusions.--Findings showed the potential of CDS systems to close the knowledge gap between pathologists for complex diagnostic tasks. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020;144:869-877; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2019-0390-OA), Advances in whole slide imaging (1) and the recent US Food and Drug Administration clearances of the first 2 whole slide imaging systems for primary diagnosis have accelerated efforts to [...]

Rationale and objectivesTumor volume change has potential as a biomarker for diagnosis, therapy planning, and treatment response. Precision was evaluated and compared among semiautomated lung tumor volume measurement algorithms from clinical thoracic computed tomography data sets. The results inform approaches and testing requirements for establishing conformance with the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA) Computed Tomography Volumetry Profile.Materials and methodsIndustry and academic groups participated in a challenge study. Intra-algorithm repeatability and inter-algorithm reproducibility were estimated. Relative magnitudes of various sources of variability were estimated using a linear mixed effects model. Segmentation boundaries were compared to provide a basis on which to optimize algorithm performance for developers.ResultsIntra-algorithm repeatability ranged from 13% (best performing) to 100% (least performing), with most algorithms demonstrating improved repeatability as the tumor size increased. Inter-algorithm reproducibility was determined in three partitions and was found to be 58% for the four best performing groups, 70% for the set of groups meeting repeatability requirements, and 84% when all groups but the least performer were included. The best performing partition performed markedly better on tumors with equivalent diameters greater than 40 mm. Larger tumors benefitted by human editing but smaller tumors did not. One-fifth to one-half of the total variability came from sources independent of the algorithms. Segmentation boundaries differed substantially, not ony in overall volume but also in detail.ConclusionsNine of the 12 participating algorithms pass precision requirements similar to what is indicated in the QIBA Profile, with the caveat that the present study was not designed to explicitly evaluate algorithm profile conformance. Change in tumor volume can be measured with confidence to within ±14% using any of these nine algorithms on tumor sizes greater than 10 mm. No partition of the algorithms was able to meet the QIBA requirements for interchangeability down to 10 mm, although the partition comprising best performing algorithms did meet this requirement for a tumor size of greater than approximately 40 mm.

Background: Observer studies in pathology often utilize a limited number of representative slides per case, selected and reported in a nonstandardized manner. Reference diagnoses are commonly assumed to be generalizable to all slides of a case. We examined these issues in the context of pathologist concordance for histologic subtype classification of ovarian carcinomas (OCs). Materials and Methods: A cohort of 114 OCs consisting of 72 cases with a single representative slide (Group 1) and 42 cases with multiple representative slides (148 slides, 2-6 sections per case, Group 2) was independently reviewed by three experts in gynecologic pathology (case-based review). In a follow-up study, each individual slide was independently reviewed in a randomized order by the same pathologists (section-based review). Results: Average interobserver concordance varied from 100% for Group 1 to 64.3% for Group 2 (86.8% across all cases). Across Group 2, 19 cases (45.2%) had at least one slide classified as a different subtype than the subtype assigned from case-based review, demonstrating the impact of intratumoral heterogeneity. Section-based concordance across individual sections from Group 2 was comparable to case-based concordance for those cases indicating diagnostic challenges at the individual section level. Findings demonstrate the increased diagnostic complexity of heterogeneous tumors that require multiple section sampling and its impact on pathologist performance. Conclusions: The proportion of cases with multiple representative slides in cohorts used in validation studies, such as those conducted to evaluate artificial intelligence/machine learning tools, can influence diagnostic performance, and if not accounted for, can cause disparities between research and real-world observations and between research studies. Case selection in validation studies should account for tumor heterogeneity to create balanced datasets in terms of diagnostic complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]