4.5 Article

Digital Slide Imaging in Cervicovaginal Cytology A Pilot Study

期刊

ARCHIVES OF PATHOLOGY & LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 137, 期 5, 页码 618-624

出版社

COLL AMER PATHOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2012-0430-OA

关键词

-

资金

  1. Institutional Review Board

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context.-Digital whole slide imaging is the anticipated future of anatomic pathology, where sign-out of glass slides will be replaced by scanned images. Whole slide imaging has been successfully used in surgical pathology, but its usefulness and clinical application have been limited in cytology for several reasons, including lack of availability of z-axis depth focusing and large file size. Recently, several systems have become available in the United States for whole slide imaging with z-axis technology. Objective.-To determine the accuracy and efficiency of whole slide imaging, as compared with traditional glass slides, for use in cervicovaginal diagnostic cytology. Design.-Eleven cervicovaginal cytology cases (ThinPrep and SurePath) scanned at 320, 340, and 340 z-stack magnifications using the BioImagene iScan Coreo Au 3.0 scanner were evaluated by 4 cytotechnologists and 3 pathologists in a blinded study. Different magnification scans were recorded as separate cases and presented in a randomized sequence. Corresponding glass slides were also reviewed. For each case, the diagnoses and total time to reach each diagnosis were recorded. Results.-Diagnostic accuracy was higher and average time per case was lower with glass slides as compared with all digital images. Among the digital images, the 340 or 340 z-stack had the highest diagnostic accuracy and lowest interpretation time. Conclusions.-Whole slide imaging is a viable option for the purposes of teaching and consultations, and as a means of archiving cases. However, considering the large file size and total time to reach diagnosis on digital images, whole slide imaging is not yet ready for daily cervicovaginal diagnostic cytology screening use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据