Author:
Browning Lisa,Colling Richard,Verrill Clare
Abstract
Abstract
Background
There are recognised potential pitfalls in digital diagnosis in urological pathology, including the grading of dysplasia. The World Health Organisation/International Society of Urological Pathology (WHO/ISUP) grading system for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is prognostically important in clear cell RCC (CCRCC) and papillary RCC (PRCC), and is included in risk stratification scores for CCRCC, thus impacting on patient management. To date there are no systematic studies examining the concordance of WHO/ISUP grading between digital pathology (DP) and glass slide (GS) images. We present a validation study examining intraobserver agreement in WHO/ISUP grade of CCRCC and PRCC.
Methods
Fifty CCRCCs and 10 PRCCs were graded (WHO/ISUP system) by three specialist uropathologists on three separate occasions (DP once then two GS assessments; GS1 and GS2) separated by wash-out periods of at least two-weeks. The grade was recorded for each assessment, and compared using Cohen’s and Fleiss’s kappa.
Results
There was 65 to 78% concordance of WHO/ISUP grading on DP and GS1. Furthermore, for the individual pathologists, the comparative kappa scores for DP versus GS1, and GS1 versus GS2, were 0.70 and 0.70, 0.57 and 0.73, and 0.71 and 0.74, and with no apparent tendency to upgrade or downgrade on DP versus GS. The interobserver kappa agreement was less, at 0.58 on DP and 0.45 on GS.
Conclusion
Our results demonstrate that the assessment of WHO/ISUP grade on DP is noninferior to that on GS. There is an apparent slight improvement in agreement between pathologists on RCC grade when assessed on DP, which may warrant further study.
Funder
Innovate UK
NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Medicine,Histology,Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Reference28 articles.
1. Royal College of Pathologists. Best practice recommendations for digital pathology. 2018. Available: https://www. rcpath. org/ resourceLibrary/ best- practice recommendations- for- implementing- digital- pathology- pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2021.
2. Araújo ALD, Arboleda LPA, Palmier NR, Fonsêca JM, de Pauli Paglioni M, Gomes-Silva W, et al. The performance of digital microscopy for primary diagnosis in human pathology: a systematic review. Virchows Arch. 2019;474(3):269–87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-018-02519-z.
3. Bauer TW, Schoenfield L, Slaw RJ, Yerian L, Sun Z, Henricks WH. Validation of whole slide imaging for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(4):518–24. doi:https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2011-0678-OA.
4. Borowsky AD, Glassy EF, Wallace WD, Kallichanda NS, Behling CA, Miller DV, et al. Digital Whole Slide Imaging Compared With Light Microscopy for Primary Diagnosis in Surgical Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020;144(10):1245–53. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2019-0569-OA.
5. Campbell WS, Lele SM, West WW, Lazenby AJ, Smith LM, Hinrichs SH. Concordance between whole-slide imaging and light microscopy for routine surgical pathology. Hum Pathol. 2012;43(10):1739–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2011.12.023.
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献