Standardized Clinical Annotation of Digital Histopathology Slides at the Point of Diagnosis.

As digital pathology replaces conventional glass slide microscopy as a means of reporting cellular pathology samples, the annotation of digital pathology whole slide images is rapidly becoming part of a pathologist's regular practice. Currently, there is no recognizable organization of these annotations, and as a result, pathologists adopt an arbitrary approach to defining regions of interest, leading to irregularity and inconsistency and limiting the downstream efficient use of this valuable effort. In this study, we propose a Standardized Annotation Reporting Style for digital whole slide images. We formed a list of 167 commonly annotated entities (under 12 specialty subcategories) based on review of Royal College of Pathologists and College of American Pathologists documents, feedback from reporting pathologists in our NHS department, and experience in developing annotation dictionaries for PathLAKE research projects. Each entity was assigned a suitable annotation shape, SNOMED CT (SNOMED International) code, and unique color. Additionally, as an example of how the approach could be expanded to specific tumor types, all lung tumors in the fifth World Health Organization of thoracic tumors 2021 were included. The proposed standardization of annotations increases their utility, making them identifiable at low power and searchable across and between cases. This would aid pathologists reporting and reviewing cases and enable annotations to be used for research. This structured approach could serve as the basis for an industry standard and be easily adopted to ensure maximum functionality and efficiency in the use of annotations made during routine clinical examination of digital slides.

Validation of digital pathology imaging for primary histopathological diagnosis.

AIMS: Digital pathology (DP) offers advantages over glass slide microscopy (GS), but data demonstrating a statistically valid equivalent (i.e. non-inferior) performance of DP against GS are required to permit its use in diagnosis. The aim of this study is to provide evidence of non-inferiority. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventeen pathologists re-reported 3017 cases by DP. Of these, 1009 were re-reported by the same pathologist, and 2008 by a different pathologist. Re-examination of 10 138 scanned slides (2.22 terabytes) produced 72 variances between GS and DP reports, including 21 clinically significant variances. Ground truth lay with GS in 12 cases and with DP in nine cases. These results are within the 95% confidence interval for existing intraobserver and interobserver variability, proving that DP is non-inferior to GS. In three cases, the digital platform was deemed to be responsible for the variance, including a gastric biopsy, where Helicobacter pylori only became visible on slides scanned at the ×60 setting, and a bronchial biopsy and penile biopsy, where dysplasia was reported on DP but was not present on GS. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest studies proving that DP is equivalent to GS for the diagnosis of histopathology specimens. Error rates are similar in both platforms, although some problems e.g. detection of bacteria, are predictable.