title: Intra-observer reproducibility of whole slide imaging for the primary diagnosis of breast needle biopsies.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Automated whole slide imaging (WSI), also known as virtual microscopy is rapidly becoming an important tool in diagnostic pathology. Currently, the primary utilization of the technique is for transmission of digital images, for second opinion consultation, as well as for quality assurance and education. The high-resolution of digital images along with the refinement of technology could now allow for WSI to be used as an alternative to conventional microscopy (CM) as a first line diagnostic platform. However, the accuracy and reproducibility of the technology for the routine histopathologic diagnosis has not been established yet. This study was undertaken to compare the intra-observer variability of WSI and CM in the primary diagnosis of breast biopsies.
  
  
  METHODS
  One hundred and three consecutive core needle biopsies of breast were selected for this study. Each slide was digitally scanned and the images were stored in a shared file. Three board-certified pathologists independently reviewed the glass slides by CM first, and in an interval of 2-3 weeks for the 2(nd) time to establish their baseline CM versus CM reproducibility. They then reviewed the digital images of all cases following the same interval of time to compare the reproducibility of WSI versus CM for each observer. The diagnostic categories included the typical range of benign and malignant mammary lesions.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The intra-observer variability for CM versus CM was 4%, 7%, and 0% for observers 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The diagnostic variability for WSI versus CM was 1%, 4%, and 1% for the same observers. All diagnostic disagreements were between ductal hyperplasia and atypical ductal hyperplasia. There was no intra-observer disagreement in the diagnosis of benign versus malignant disease.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The intra-observer variability in the diagnosis of the core needle biopsies of the breast by high-resolution, WSI was the same as conventional glass slide microscopy. These results suggest that, WSI could be used similar to CM for the initial diagnosis of breast biopsies.
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology, University of Miami, Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Carolina
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Reyes
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology, University of Miami, Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Offiong F
authors.initials: OF
authors.lastname: Ikpatt
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology, University of Miami, Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Mehrdad
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Nadji
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology, University of Miami, Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Richard J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Cote
keywords: Breast biopsy; digital microscopy; reproducibility; whole slide imaging
references.citation: Hum Pathol. 2009 May;40(5):662-7
references.pmid: 19144382
references.citation: Pathol Res Pract. 2009;205(11):735-41
references.pmid: 19501988
references.citation: Hum Pathol. 2009 Aug;40(8):1112-21
references.pmid: 19540551
references.citation: Hum Pathol. 2006 Mar;37(3):322-31
references.pmid: 16613327
references.citation: J Pathol. 2001 Nov;195(4):508-14
references.pmid: 11745684
references.citation: Am J Clin Pathol. 1999 Jun;111(6):792-5
references.pmid: 10361515
references.citation: J Pathol. 2004 Dec;204(5):613-8
references.pmid: 15470688
references.citation: J Clin Pathol. 2012 Dec;65(12):1107-11
references.pmid: 23093511
references.citation: Hum Pathol. 2011 Jan;42(1):68-74
references.pmid: 20970164
references.citation: Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009 Dec;133(12):1949-53
references.pmid: 19961250
references.citation: Histopathology. 2011 Oct;59(4):703-9
references.pmid: 22014051
references.citation: Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011 Mar;135(3):372-8
references.pmid: 21366463
references.citation: J Pathol Inform. 2011;2:36
references.pmid: 21886892
references.citation: J Clin Pathol. 2012 Oct;65(10):877-81
references.pmid: 22791768
references.citation: Hum Pathol. 2012 Dec;43(12):2318-25
references.pmid: 22901465
references.citation: Adv Anat Pathol. 2012 May;19(3):152-9
references.pmid: 22498580
references.citation: Hum Pathol. 2003 May;34(5):430-6
references.pmid: 12792915
references.citation: BMC Clin Pathol. 2006 Apr 27;6:4
references.pmid: 16643664
references.citation: Hum Pathol. 2009 Aug;40(8):1057-69
references.pmid: 19552937
references.citation: Pathol Res Pract. 2011 Jun 15;207(6):366-9
references.pmid: 21570778
references.citation: J Pathol Inform. 2011;2:39
references.pmid: 21969920
references.citation: J Clin Pathol. 2003 Jun;56(6):433-8
references.pmid: 12783970
references.citation: Hum Pathol. 2000 Jul;31(7):781-5
references.pmid: 10923912
references.citation: Hum Pathol. 2012 May;43(5):702-7
references.pmid: 21937077