Evaluation environment for digital and analog pathology: a platform for validation studies

Abstract. We present a platform for designing and executing studies that compare pathologists interpreting histopathology of whole slide images (WSIs) on a computer display to pathologists interpreting glass slides on an optical microscope. eeDAP is an evaluation environment for digital and analog pathology. The key element in eeDAP is the registration of the WSI to the glass slide. Registration is accomplished through computer control of the microscope stage and a camera mounted on the microscope that acquires real-time images of the microscope field of view (FOV). Registration allows for the evaluation of the same regions of interest (ROIs) in both domains. This can reduce or eliminate disagreements that arise from pathologists interpreting different areas and focuses on the comparison of image quality. We reduced the pathologist interpretation area from an entire glass slide (10 to 30  mm2) to small ROIs (<50  μm2). We also made possible the evaluation of individual cells. We summarize eeDAP’s software and hardware and provide calculations and corresponding images of the microscope FOV and the ROIs extracted from the WSIs. The eeDAP software can be downloaded from the Google code website (project: eeDAP) as a MATLAB source or as a precompiled stand-alone license-free application.

[1]  Kristine A. Erps,et al.  Overview of telepathology, virtual microscopy, and whole slide imaging: prospects for the future. , 2009, Human pathology.

[2]  Marios A. Gavrielides,et al.  Assessing color reproducibility of whole-slide imaging scanners , 2013, Medical Imaging.

[3]  Wei-Chung Cheng,et al.  Consistency and Standardization of Color in Medical Imaging: a Consensus Report , 2014, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[4]  Jiang Gu,et al.  Virtual microscopy and virtual slides in teaching, diagnosis, and research , 2005 .

[5]  Drazen Jukic,et al.  Evaluation of 2 whole-slide imaging applications in dermatopathology. , 2008, Human pathology.

[6]  John D. Pfeifer,et al.  Review of the current state of whole slide imaging in pathology , 2011, Journal of pathology informatics.

[7]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  ACR–AAPM–SIIM Technical Standard for Electronic Practice of Medical Imaging , 2013, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[8]  Shaimaa Al-Janabi,et al.  Digital pathology: current status and future perspectives , 2012, Histopathology.

[9]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  IT Reference Guide for the Practicing Radiologist , 2013 .

[10]  Marios A. Gavrielides,et al.  Observer Performance in the Use of Digital and Optical Microscopy for the Interpretation of Tissue-Based Biomarkers , 2014, Analytical cellular pathology.

[11]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  A Framework for Random-Effects ROC Analysis: Biases with the Bootstrap and Other Variance Estimators , 2009 .

[12]  Gloria Bueno García,et al.  Critical Comparison of 31 Commercially Available Digital Slide Systems in Pathology , 2006, International journal of surgical pathology.

[13]  David Moher,et al.  Toward complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The STARD initiative. , 2003, American journal of clinical pathology.

[14]  Alexis B. Carter,et al.  Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. , 2013, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[15]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics.

[16]  Donald L Weaver,et al.  Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel , 2014, Histopathology.

[17]  I Vergote,et al.  A scoring system for immunohistochemical staining: consensus report of the task force for basic research of the EORTC-GCCG. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Gynaecological Cancer Cooperative Group. , 1997, Journal of clinical pathology.

[18]  Christopher Otis,et al.  Quality assurance for design control and implementation of immunohistochemistry assays; Approved guidelinesecond edition , 2011 .

[19]  Wei-Chung Cheng,et al.  eeDAP: an evaluation environment for digital and analog pathology , 2014, Medical Imaging.

[20]  Louis D. Silverstein,et al.  Observer Performance Using Virtual Pathology Slides: Impact of LCD Color Reproduction Accuracy , 2012, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[21]  A. Jara-Lazaro,et al.  Digital pathology: exploring its applications in diagnostic surgical pathology practice , 2010, Pathology.