Evaluating Urine Cytology Slide Digitization Efficiency: A Comparative Study Using an Artificial Intelligence-Based Heuristic Scanning Simulation and Multiple Z-Plane Scanning.

INTRODUCTION: Digitizing cytology slides presents challenges because of their three-dimensional features and uneven cell distribution. While multi-Z-plane scan is a prevalent solution, its adoption in clinical digital cytopathology is hindered by prolonged scanning times, increased image file sizes, and the requirement for cytopathologists to review multiple Z-plane images. METHODS: This study presents heuristic scan as a novel solution, using an artificial intelligence (AI)-based approach specifically designed for cytology slide scanning as an alternative to the multi-Z-plane scan. Both the 21 Z-plane scan and the heuristic scan simulation methods were used on 52 urine cytology slides from three distinct cytopreparations (Cytospin, ThinPrep, and BD CytoRich™ [SurePath]), generating whole-slide images (WSIs) via the Leica Aperio AT2 digital scanner. The AI algorithm inferred the WSI from 21 Z-planes to quantitate the total number of suspicious for high-grade urothelial carcinoma or more severe cells (SHGUC+) cells. The heuristic scan simulation calculated the total number of SHGUC+ cells from the 21 Z-plane scan data. Performance metrics including SHGUC+ cell coverage rates (calculated by dividing the number of SHGUC+ cells identified in multiple Z-planes or heuristic scan simulation by the total SHGUC+ cells in the 21 Z-planes for each WSI), scanning time, and file size were analyzed to compare the performance of each scanning method. The heuristic scan's metrics were linearly estimated from the 21 Z-plane scan data. Additionally, AI-aided interpretations of WSIs with scant SHGUC+ cells followed The Paris System guidelines and were compared with original diagnoses. RESULTS: The heuristic scan achieved median SHGUC+ cell coverage rates similar to 5 Z-plane scans across three cytopreparations (0.78-0.91 vs. 0.75-0.88, p = 0.451-0.578). Notably, it substantially reduced both scanning time (137.2-635.0 s vs. 332.6-1,278.8 s, p < 0.05) and image file size (0.51-2.10 GB vs. 1.16-3.10 GB, p < 0.05). Importantly, the heuristic scan yielded higher rates of accurate AI-aided interpretations compared to the single Z-plane scan (62.5% vs. 37.5%). CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that the heuristic scan offers a cost-effective alternative to the conventional multi-Z-plane scan in digital cytopathology. It achieves comparable SHGUC+ cell capture rates while reducing both scanning time and image file size, promising to aid digital urine cytology interpretations with a higher accuracy rate compared to the conventional single (optimal) plane scan. Further studies are needed to assess the integration of this new technology into compatible digital scanners for practical cytology slide scanning.

Comparative evaluation of slide scanners, scan settings, and cytopreparations for digital urine cytology.

Background: Acquiring well-focused digital images of cytology slides with scanners can be challenging due to the 3-dimensional nature of the slides. This study evaluates performances of whole-slide images (WSIs) obtained from 2 different cytopreparations by 2 distinct scanners with 3 focus modes. Methods: Fourteen urine specimens were collected from patients with urothelial carcinoma. Each specimen was equally divided into 2 portions, prepared with Cytospin and ThinPrep methods and scanned for WSIs using Leica (Aperio AT2) and Hamamatsu (NanoZoomer S360) scanners, respectively. The scan settings included 3 focus modes (default, semi-auto, and manual) for single-layer scanning, along with a manual focus mode for 21 Z-layers scanning. Performance metrics were evaluated including scanning success rate, artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm-inferred atypical cell numbers and coverage rate (atypical cell numbers in single or multiple Z-layers divided by the total atypical cell numbers in 21 Z-layers), scanning time, and image file size. Results: The default mode had scanning success rates of 85.7% or 92.9%, depending on the scanner used. The semi-auto mode increased success to 92.9% or 100%, and manual even further to 100%. However, these changes did not affect the standardized median atypical cell numbers and coverage rates. The selection of scanners, cytopreparations, and Z-stacking influenced standardized median atypical cell numbers and coverage rates, scanning times, and image file sizes. Discussion: Both scanners showed satisfactory scanning. We recommend using semi-auto or manual focus modes to achieve a scanning success rate of up to 100%. Additionally, a minimum of 9-layer Z-stacking at 1 µm intervals is required to cover 80% of atypical cells. These advanced focus methods do not impact the number of atypical cells or their coverage rate. While Z-stacking enhances the AI algorithm's inferred quantity and coverage rates of atypical cells, it simultaneously results in longer scanning times and larger image file sizes.