Digital pathology for reporting histopathology samples, including cancer screening samples - definitive evidence from a multisite study.

AIMS: To conduct a definitive multicentre comparison of digital pathology (DP) with light microscopy (LM) for reporting histopathology slides including breast and bowel cancer screening samples. METHODS: A total of 2024 cases (608 breast, 607 GI, 609 skin, 200 renal) were studied, including 207 breast and 250 bowel cancer screening samples. Cases were examined by four pathologists (16 study pathologists across the four speciality groups), using both LM and DP, with the order randomly assigned and 6 weeks between viewings. Reports were compared for clinical management concordance (CMC), meaning identical diagnoses plus differences which do not affect patient management. Percentage CMCs were computed using logistic regression models with crossed random-effects terms for case and pathologist. The obtained percentage CMCs were referenced to 98.3% calculated from previous studies. RESULTS: For all cases LM versus DP comparisons showed the CMC rates were 99.95% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 99.90-99.97] and 98.96 (95% CI = 98.42-99.32) for cancer screening samples. In speciality groups CMC for LM versus DP showed: breast 99.40% (99.06-99.62) overall and 96.27% (94.63-97.43) for cancer screening samples; [gastrointestinal (GI) = 99.96% (99.89-99.99)] overall and 99.93% (99.68-99.98) for bowel cancer screening samples; skin 99.99% (99.92-100.0); renal 99.99% (99.57-100.0). Analysis of clinically significant differences revealed discrepancies in areas where interobserver variability is known to be high, in reads performed with both modalities and without apparent trends to either. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing LM and DP CMC, overall rates exceed the reference 98.3%, providing compelling evidence that pathologists provide equivalent results for both routine and cancer screening samples irrespective of the modality used.

What factors influence cellular pathologists' confidence in case reporting?

Histopathology is a challenging interpretive discipline, and the level of confidence a pathologist has in their diagnosis is known to vary, which is conveyed descriptively in pathology reports. There has been little study to accurately quantify pathologists' diagnostic confidence or the factors that influence it. In this study involving sixteen pathologists from six NHS trusts, we assessed diagnostic confidence across multiple variables and four specialties. Each case was reported by four pathologists, with each pathologist reporting each case twice (on light microscopy (LM) and digital pathology (DP)). For each diagnosis, pathologists recorded their confidence on a 7-point Likert scale. This provided 16,187 diagnoses and associated confidence scores for analysis. All variables investigated were found to be significantly predictive of diagnostic confidence, except level of pathologist experience. Confidence was lower for difficult to report cases, cases where there was inter- and intra-pathologist variation in the diagnosis, and cases where the pathologist made an incorrect diagnosis. Confidence was higher, although nominally, for LM diagnoses than DP (rate ratio 1.09 (95% CI 1.01-1.18), p = 0.035), although results indicate pathologists are confident to report on DP. Lowest confidence scores were seen in areas of known diagnostic complexity and cases with quality issues. High confidence in incorrect diagnoses were almost invariably attributed to interpretive diagnostic differences which occurred across both rare and common lesions. The results highlight the value of external quality control schemes and the benefits of selective peer review when reporting.

Efficient adaptive designs for clinical trials of interventions for COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented response in terms of clinical research activity. An important part of this research has been focused on randomized controlled clinical trials to evaluate potential therapies for COVID-19. The results from this research need to be obtained as rapidly as possible. This presents a number of challenges associated with considerable uncertainty over the natural history of the disease and the number and characteristics of patients affected, and the emergence of new potential therapies. These challenges make adaptive designs for clinical trials a particularly attractive option. Such designs allow a trial to be modified on the basis of interim analysis data or stopped as soon as sufficiently strong evidence has been observed to answer the research question, without compromising the trial's scientific validity or integrity. In this paper we describe some of the adaptive design approaches that are available and discuss particular issues and challenges associated with their use in the pandemic setting. Our discussion is illustrated by details of four ongoing COVID-19 trials that have used adaptive design