In last part of this blog series we explore challenges caveats and future of WSI.
CAVEATS AND CHALLENGES OF WSI
In order to integrate WSI into routine clinical pathology practice, an infrastructure needs to be developed in the pathology department (37, 60, 66, 75, 111). This infrastructure consists of: (i) hardware for scanning slides, storing the scanned images, transmission of the images to pathologists, and the interfaces necessary to display the images and report interpretations; and (ii) the software to facilitate the workflow of the image movement, display, and reporting of the results. Additionally, for remote teleconsultation, features like security of protected patient information, process validation, as well as regulatory, medicolegal, and billing issues need to be added. However, there are many unresolved issues, as outlined below, which still need to be addressed before WSI finds its place in routine application across the wide specialty of pathology (37, 51).
Cost
The cost of procurement, implementation, and operational costs of WSI may be prohibitive, especially for small pathology laboratories due to huge initial cost of the scanners and additional hidden costs of training of staff and pathologists, technical support, digital slide storage systems, and regulatory or licensing costs (43, 112). Technological support for telepathology further compounds these costs. A recently published cost-benefit analysis at a large-volume academic center with slides in excess of 1.5 million showed a projected $1.3 million savings over a 5-year period (113). However, the same analysis needs to be undertaken for smaller laboratories and low-resource settings.
Technological Issues
Scanning the whole slide/smear is a tedious and time-consuming process at present. Scanning times can vary from 1 to 5 min for a small biopsy to 5–20 min for a surgical specimen and 3–5 min for a liquid-based cytology smear (58). Another limitation with currently available scanners is the requirement of massive data storage capacity. Scanning at × 40 magnification of a 1-mm2 area results in a file size of 48 megabytes. Hence, majority of the WSI systems incorporate image compression algorithms (JPEG, JPEG 2000, LZW) to reduce the file size, however that introduces image artefacts. Some scanners offer the ability of multi-resolution representation (pyramid representation) where the field of view on the screen is inversely proportional to the magnification being viewed (43). Majority of the WSI systems utilize a content management system with specific programming in order to display the virtual slides in a consistent and specific manner (43). Currently, there are vendor-dependent limitations with WSI systems. Some vendors use proprietary modules with limited scope of cross-browser compatibility or seamless execution on multiple devices.
Professional Barriers
Unlike radiology where digital systems obviate the need of making films, WSI in pathology does not reduce the laboratory’s workload since glass slides still need to be prepared to be scanned. However, WSI does allow for streamlined navigation of the slides at various magnifications without the fear of accidentally breaking a slide at the microscope. The current WSI systems allow for batch-wise scanning of slides, thus improving the efficiency of the laboratory (8, 43, 113).
Other issues include available bandwidth of the network at the pathologists’ workplace, security issues related to information technology, and installation of compatible browsers. However, with progress in information technology, the systems shall continue to be upgraded for improved speed and compatibility with browsers (60).
The FDA approval of WSI in primary surgical pathology diagnosis does open up the issue of legal implications for the reporting pathologists. The relevant regulatory agencies (such as CLIA) need to put forth their guidelines in light of the expected changes with adoption of WSI by pathologists.
Regulatory Issues
Though FDA has accorded its approval for use of WSI in surgical pathology practice in 2018, the other subspecialties of pathology still have a long path to tread towards this goal. At the same time, validation of WSI for introduction into the surgical pathology practice is still merely a recommendation of the CAP. Regulations also need to be put in place regarding the archiving, retrieval, and access rights of the virtual slide library so formed (8, 38, 113).
CONCLUSION
WSI is an exciting and promising technology with various advantages and a few challenges. The future of WSI lies in having an ideal vendor-neutral archive wherein a single software-hardware solution allows single viewing, storage, and retrieval with no barriers of the data source. This coupled with the promise of artificial intelligence, pathology is poised for new discoveries and solutions (81, 92)
FUTURE OF WSI
1) Availability of high-resolution 3-dimensional imaging, especially for tumors, would improve the use of this technology with correlation between radiologic imaging and WSI (64).
2) Multispectral imaging, when applied to WSI, would offer the ability to characterize chromatic properties and support color-based classification and multi-labelling studies (58).
3) Refinement of AI and machine learning algorithms would allow the pathologists contribute in a larger role in improving patient management and outcomes (51).
Virtual microscopy using whole slide scanning is an area of profound and rapid technologic development with numerous applications in the field of pathology. Despite its several advantages and claims of it being equivalent to conventional microscopy, the adoption of this technique has been rather slow even in the developed nations. The barriers referred to in this paper currently preclude the wide application of whole slide scanning in the resource constrained medical institutions of the developing world. Apart from the technical and cost-related issues, regulatory and validation requirements also need to be adequately addressed, especially for the developing nations. Nevertheless, WSI does provide a golden opportunity for pathologists to guide its evolution, standardization, and implementation by playing a key role in defining/ refining guidelines, designing the resource specific digital pathology laboratories, and propagating standardized educational modules to train the next generation of virtual pathologists.
References for PART-I-V
1. Aeffner F, Zarella MD, Buchbinder N, Bui MM, Goodman MR, Hartman DJ, et al. Introduction to digital image analysis in whole-slide imaging: a white paper from the digital pathology association. Journal of pathology informatics. 2019;10.
2. Hamilton PW, Wang Y, McCullough SJ. Virtual microscopy and digital pathology in training and education. Apmis. 2012 Apr;120(4):305-15.
3. Ferreira R, Moon J, Humphries J, Sussman A, Saltz J, Miller R, et al. "The virtual microscope". Romanian Journal of Morphology and Embryology. 1997;45: 449–453.
4. Ho J, Parwani AV, Jukic DM, Yagi Y, Anthony L, Gilbertson JR. Use of whole slide imaging in surgical pathology quality assurance: design and pilot validation studies. Human pathology. 2006 Mar 1;37(3):322-31.
5. Pantanowitz L. Digital images and the future of digital pathology. Journal of pathology informatics. 2010;1.
6. Pantanowitz L, Sharma A, Carter AB, Kurc T, Sussman A, Saltz J. Twenty years of digital pathology: an overview of the road travelled, what is on the horizon, and the emergence of vendor-neutral archives. Journal of pathology informatics. 2018;9.
7. Saco A, Bombi JA, Garcia A, Ramírez J, Ordi J. Current status of whole-slide imaging in education. Pathobiology. 2016;83(2-3):79-88.
8. Abels E, Pantanowitz L. Current state of the regulatory trajectory for whole slide imaging devices in the USA. Journal of pathology informatics. 2017;8.
9. Wilbur DC. Digital cytology: current state of the art and prospects for the future. Acta cytologica. 2011;55(3):227-38.
10. Cucoranu IC, Parwani AV, Pantanowitz L. Digital whole slide imaging in cytology. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. 2014 Mar;138(3):300.
11. Farris AB, Cohen C, Rogers TE, Smith GH. Whole slide imaging for analytical anatomic pathology and telepathology: practical applications today, promises, and perils. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2017 Apr;141(4):542-50.
12. Gilbertson JR, Ho J, Anthony L, Jukic DM, Yagi Y, Parwani AV. Primary histologic diagnosis using automated whole slide imaging: a validation study. BMC clinical pathology. 2006 Dec;6(1):1-9.
13. Farahani N, Parwani AV, Pantanowitz L. Whole slide imaging in pathology: advantages, limitations, and emerging perspectives. Pathol Lab Med Int. 2015 Jun 11;7(23-33):4321.
14. Pantanowitz L, Sinard JH, Henricks WH, Fatheree LA, Carter AB, Contis L, et al. Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. 2013 Dec;137(12):1710-22.
15. Bueno G, Déniz O, Fernández‐Carrobles MD, Vállez N, Salido J. An automated system for whole microscopic image acquisition and analysis. Microscopy research and technique. 2014 Sep;77(9):697-713.
16. Montironi R, Cimadamore A, Massari F, Montironi MA, Lopez-Beltran A, Cheng L, et al. Whole slide imaging of large format histology in prostate pathology: potential for information fusion. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. 2017 Nov;141(11):1460-1.
17. Indu M, Rathy R, Binu MP. “Slide less pathology”: Fairy tale or reality? Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology: JOMFP. 2016 May;20(2):284.
18. Hamilton PW, Bankhead P, Wang Y, Hutchinson R, Kieran D, McArt DG, et al. Digital pathology and image analysis in tissue biomarker research. Methods. 2014 Nov 1;70(1):59-73.
19. Higgins C. Applications and challenges of digital pathology and whole slide imaging.
Biotech Histochem. 2015 Jul;90(5):341-7.
20. Feng Z, Puri S, Moudgil T, Wood W, Hoyt CC, Wang C, et al. Multispectral imaging of formalin-fixed tissue predicts ability to generate tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes from melanoma. Journal for immunotherapy of cancer. 2015 Dec;3(1):1-1.
21. Montalto MC, McKay RR, Filkins RJ. Autofocus methods of whole slide imaging systems and the introduction of a second-generation independent dual sensor scanning method. Journal of pathology informatics. 2011;2.
22. Boyce BF. Whole slide imaging: uses and limitations for surgical pathology and teaching. Biotechnic&Histochemistry. 2015 Jul 4;90(5):321-30.
23. Al‐Janabi S, Huisman A, Van Diest PJ. Digital pathology: current status and future perspectives. Histopathology. 2012 Jul;61(1):1-9.
24. Laurent C, Guérin M, Frenois FX, Thuries V, Jalabert L, Brousset P, et al. Whole-slide imaging is a robust alternative to traditional fluorescent microscopy for fluorescence in situ hybridization imaging using break-apart DNA probes. Human Pathology. 2013 Aug 1;44(8):1544-55.
25. Bertram CA, Klopfleisch R. The pathologist 2.0: an update on digital pathology in veterinary medicine. Veterinary pathology. 2017 Sep;54(5):756-66.
26. Neil DA, Demetris AJ. Digital pathology services in acute surgical situations. Journal of British Surgery. 2014 Sep;101(10):1185-6.
27. Sellaro TL, Filkins R, Hoffman C, Fine JL, Ho J, Parwani AV, et al. Relationship between magnification and resolution in digital pathology systems. Journal of pathology informatics. 2013;4.
28. Johnson JP, Krupinski EA, Nafziger JS, Yan M, Roehrig H. Visually lossless compression of breast biopsy virtual slides for telepathology. InMedical Imaging 2009: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment 2009 Mar 12 (Vol. 7263, pp. 206-213). SPIE.
29. Pantanowitz L, Szymas J, Yagi Y, Wilbur D. Whole slide imaging for educational purposes. Journal of pathology informatics. 2012;3.
30. Pantanowitz L, Wiley CA, Demetris A, Lesniak A, Ahmed I, Cable W, et al. Experience with multimodality telepathology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Journal of pathology informatics. 2012;3.
31. Isaacs M, Lennerz JK, Yates S, Clermont W, Rossi J, Pfeifer JD. Implementation of whole slide imaging in surgical pathology: A value added approach. Journal of Pathology Informatics. 2011;2.
32. Saco A, Diaz A, Hernandez M, Martinez D, Montironi C, Castillo P, et al. Validation of whole-slide imaging in the primary diagnosis of liver biopsies in a university hospital. Digestive and Liver Disease. 2017 Nov 1;49(11):1240-6.
33. Krupinski EA, Johnson JP, Jaw S, Graham AR, Weinstein RS. Compressing pathology whole-slide images using a human and model observer evaluation. Journal of pathology informatics. 2012;3.
34. Avanaki AR, Espig KS, Sawhney S, Pantanowitzc L, Parwani AV, Xthona A, et al. Aging display's effect on interpretation of digital pathology slide. InMedical Imaging 2015: Digital Pathology 2015 Mar 19 (Vol. 9420, p. 942006). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
35. Yagi Y. Color standardization and optimization in whole slide imaging. In: Diagnostic pathology 2011 Dec (Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-12). BioMed Central.
36. Hanna MG, Parwani A, Sirintrapun SJ. Whole slide imaging: technology and applications. Advances in Anatomic Pathology. 2020 Jul 12;27(4):251-9.
37. Parwani AV, Hassell L, Glassy E, Pantanowitz L. Regulatory barriers surrounding the use of whole slide imaging in the United States of America. Journal of pathology informatics. 2014;5.
38. Ho J, Aridor O, Glinski DW, Saylor CD, Pelletier JP, Selby DM, et al. Needs and workflow assessment prior to implementation of a digital pathology infrastructure for the US Air Force Medical Service. Journal of Pathology Informatics. 2013;4.
39. Evans AJ, Bauer TW, Bui MM, Cornish TC, Duncan H, Glassy EF, et al. US Food and Drug Administration approval of whole slide imaging for primary diagnosis: a key milestone is reached and new questions are raised. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2018 Nov;142(11):1383-7.
40. Evans AJ, Kiehl TR, Croul S. Frequently asked questions concerning the use of whole-slide imaging telepathology for neuropathology frozen sections. In Seminars in diagnostic pathology 2010 Aug 1 (Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 160-166). WB Saunders.
41. Ordi J, Castillo P, Saco A, Pino MD, Ordi O, Rodriguez-Carunchio Let al. Validation of whole slide imaging in the primary diagnosis of gynaecological pathology in a University Hospital. J ClinPathol2015;68:33-39.
42. Hanna MG, Reuter VE, Samboy J, England C, Corsale L, Fine SW, et al. Implementation of digital pathology offers clinical and operational increase in efficiency and cost savings. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2019 Dec;143(12):1545-55.
43. Zarella MD, Bowman D, Aeffner F, Farahani N, Xthona A, Absar SF, et al. A practical guide to whole slide imaging: a white paper from the digital pathology association. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2019 Feb;143(2):222-34.
44. Park S, Pantanowitz L, Parwani AV. Digital imaging in pathology. Clinics in laboratory medicine. 2012 Dec 1;32(4):557-84.
45. Chen YK, Hsue SS, Lin DC, Wang WC, Chen JY, Lin CC, et al. An application of virtual microscopy in the teaching of an oral and maxillofacial pathology laboratory course. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2008 Mar 1;105(3):342-7.
46. Rohde GK, Ozolek JA, Parwani AV, Pantanowitz L. Carnegie Mellon University bioimaging day 2014: Challenges and opportunities in digital pathology. Journal of pathology informatics. 2014;5.
47. Lee BC, Hsieh ST, Chang YL, Tseng FY, Lin YJ, Chen YL, et al. A web‐based virtual microscopy platform for improving academic performance in histology and pathology laboratory courses: A pilot study. Anatomical sciences education. 2020 Nov;13(6):743-58.
48. Fraggetta F, Yagi Y, Garcia-Rojo M, Evans AJ, Tuthill JM, Baidoshvili A, et al. The importance of eSlide macro images for primary diagnosis with whole slide imaging. Journal of Pathology Informatics. 2018;9.
49. Guo H, Birsa J, Farahani N, Hartman DJ, Piccoli A, O’Leary M, et al. Digital pathology and anatomic pathology laboratory information system integration to support digital pathology sign-out. Journal of pathology informatics. 2016;7.
50. Li L, Dangott BJ, Parwani AV. Development and use of a genitourinary pathology digital teaching set for trainee education. Journal of pathology informatics. 2010;1.
51. Volynskaya Z, Evans AJ, Asa SL. Clinical applications of whole-slide imaging in anatomic pathology. Advances in Anatomic Pathology. 2017 Jul 1;24(4):215-21.
52. Ho J, Ahlers SM, Stratman C, Aridor O, Pantanowitz L, Fine JL, et al. Can digital pathology result in cost savings? A financial projection for digital pathology implementation at a large integrated health care organization. Journal of pathology informatics. 2014;5.
53. Girolami I, Pantanowitz L, Marletta S, Brunelli M, Mescoli C, Parisi A, et al. Diagnostic concordance between whole slide imaging and conventional light microscopy in cytopathology: a systematic review. Cancer cytopathology. 2020 Jan;128(1):17-28.
54. Eccher A, Brunelli M, Pantanowitz L, Parwani A, Girolami I, Scarpa A. Innovation in transplantation: The digital era. Journal of Pathology Informatics. 2018;9.
55. Kayser K, Ogilvie R, Borkenfeld S, Kayser G. E-education in pathology including certification of e-institutions. InDiagnostic Pathology 2011 Dec (Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-4). BioMed Central.
56. Glassy EF. Rebooting the pathology journal: learning in the age of digital pathology. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. 2014 Jun;138(6):728-9.
57. Girolami I, Parwani A, Barresi V, Marletta S, Ammendola S, Stefanizzi L, et al. The landscape of digital pathology in transplantation: From the beginning to the virtual E-slide. Journal of Pathology Informatics. 2019;10.
58. Ghaznavi F, Evans A, Madabhushi A, Feldman M. Digital imaging in pathology: whole-slide imaging and beyond. Annual Review of Pathology: Mechanisms of Disease. 2013 Jan 24;8:331-59.
59. Wilbur DC, Madi K, Colvin RB, Duncan LM, Faquin WC, Ferry JA, et al. Whole-slide imaging digital pathology as a platform for teleconsultation: a pilot study using paired subspecialist correlations. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2009 Dec;133(12):1949-53.
60. Williams BJ, Fraggetta F, Hanna MG, Huang R, Lennerz J, Salgado R, et al The future of pathology: What can we learn from the COVID-19 pandemic?. Journal of Pathology Informatics. 2020;11.
61. Zhao C, Wu T, Ding X, Parwani AV, Chen H, McHugh J, et al. International telepathology consultation: three years of experience between the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and KingMed Diagnostics in China. Journal of Pathology Informatics. 2015;6.
62. Pantanowitz L, McHugh J, Cable W, Zhao C, Parwani AV. Imaging file management to support international telepathology. Journal of pathology informatics. 2015;6.
63. Weinstein RS, Graham AR, Richter LC, Barker GP, Krupinski EA, Lopez AM, et al. Overview of telepathology, virtual microscopy, and whole slide imaging: prospects for the future. Human pathology. 2009 Aug 1;40(8):1057-69.
64. Feldman MD. Beyond morphology: whole slide imaging, computer-aided detection, and other techniques. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2008 May;132(5):758-63.
65. Hanna MG, Reuter VE, Ardon O, Kim D, Sirintrapun SJ, Schüffler PJ, et al. Validation of a digital pathology system including remote review during the COVID-19 pandemic. Modern Pathology. 2020 Nov;33(11):2115-27.
66. Scarl RT, Parwani A, Yearsley M. From glass-time to screen-time: a pathology resident's experience with digital sign-out during the coronavirus 2019 pandemic. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. 2021 Jun;145(6):644-5.
67. Hipp JD, Fernandez A, Compton CC, Balis UJ. Why a pathology image should not be considered as a radiology image. Journal of pathology informatics. 2011;2.
68. Patterson ES, Rayo M, Gill C, Gurcan MN. Barriers and facilitators to adoption of soft copy interpretation from the user perspective: Lessons learned from filmless radiology for slideless pathology. Journal of pathology informatics. 2011;2.
69. Montalto MC. Pathology RE-imagined: the history of digital radiology and the future of anatomic pathology. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2008 May;132(5):764-5.
70. Mukhopadhyay S, Feldman MD, Abels E, Ashfaq R, Beltaifa S, Cacciabeve NG, et al. Whole slide imaging versus microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology: a multicenter blinded randomized noninferiority study of 1992 cases (pivotal study). The American journal of surgical pathology. 2018 Jan;42(1):39.
71. Graham AR, Bhattacharyya AK, Scott KM, Lian F, Grasso LL, Richter LC, et al. Virtual slide telepathology for an academic teaching hospital surgical pathology quality assurance program. Human pathology. 2009 Aug 1;40(8):1129-36.
72. Daniel C, Rojo MG, Klossa J, Della Mea V, Boet-0[poker D, Beckwith BA, et al. Standardizing the use of whole slide images in digital pathology. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics. 2011 Oct 1;35(7-8):496-505.
73. Chordia TD, Vikey A, Choudhary AB, Samdariya Y, Chordia DS. Current status and future trends in telepathology and digital pathology. Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology: JOMFP. 2016 May;20(2):178.
74. Farahani N, Pantanowitz L. Overview of telepathology. Surgical Pathology Clinics. 2015 Jun 1;8(2):223-31.
75. Parwani AV, Amin MB. Convergence of Digital Pathology and Artifiial intelligence tools in anatomic pathology practice: Current landscape and future directions. Adv Anat Pathol 2020;27:221-226.
76. Abels E, Pantanowitz L, Aeffner F, Zarella MD, van der Laak J, Bui MM, et al. Computational pathology definitions, best practices, and recommendations for regulatory guidance: a white paper from the Digital Pathology Association. The Journal of pathology. 2019 Nov;249(3):286-94.
77. Parwani A. Overcoming barriers to digital pathology. MLO Med Lab Obs2016;48:38.
78. Evans AJ, Vajpeyi R, Henry M, Chetty R. Establishment of a remote diagnostic histopathology service using whole slide imaging (digital pathology). Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2021 Jul 1;74(7):421-4.
79. Romero Lauro G, Cable W, Lesniak A, Tseytlin E, McHugh J, Parwani A, et al. Digital pathology consultations—a new era in digital imaging, challenges and practical applications. Journal of digital imaging. 2013 Aug;26(4):668-77.
80. McClintock DS, Lee RE, Gilbertson JR. Using computerized workflow simulations to assess the feasibility of whole slide imaging full adoption in a high-volume histology laboratory. Analytical Cellular Pathology. 2012 Jan 1;35(1):57-64.
81. Lara H, Li Z, Abels E, Aeffner F, Bui MM, ElGabry EA, et al. Quantitative image analysis for tissue biomarker use: a white paper from the digital pathology association. Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology. 2021 Aug;29(7):479.
82. Fine JL, Grzybicki DM, Silowash R, Ho J, Gilbertson JR, Anthony L, et al. Evaluation of whole slide image immunohistochemistry interpretation in challenging prostate needle biopsies. Human pathology. 2008 Apr 1;39(4):564-72.
83. Lee KC, Mak LS. Virtual electron microscopy: a simple implementation creating a new paradigm in ultrastructural examination. International Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2011 Oct;19(5):570-5.
84. Lee RE, McClintock DS, Laver NM, Yagi Y. Evaluation and optimization for liquid-based preparation cytology in whole slide imaging. Journal of pathology Informatics. 2011;2.
85. Khalbuss WE, Pantanowitz L, Parwani AV. Digital imaging in cytopathology. Pathology research international. 2011;2011.
86. Hanna MG, Pantanowitz L. Why is digital pathology in cytopathology lagging behind surgical pathology? Cancer Cytopathology. 2017 Jul;125(7):519-20.
87. Bongaerts O, Clevers C, Debets M, Paffen D, Senden L, Rijks K, et al. Conventional microscopical versus digital whole-slide imaging-based diagnosis of thin-layer cervical specimens: a validation study. Journal of Pathology Informatics. 2018;9.Zarella MD, Jakubowski J: Video compression to support the expansion of whole-slide imaging into cytology. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 6:047502, 2019.
88. Hanna MG, Monaco SE, Cuda J, Xing J, Ahmed I, Pantanowitz L. Comparison of glass slides and various digital‐slide modalities for cytopathology screening and interpretation. Cancer Cytopathology. 2017 Sep;125(9):701-9.
89. Wright AM, Smith D, Dhurandhar B, Fairley T, Scheiber-Pacht M, Chakraborty S, et al. Digital slide imaging in cervicovaginal cytology: a pilot study. Archives of pathology and laboratory medicine. 2013 May;137(5):618-24.
90. Van Es SL, Greaves J, Gay S, Ross J, Holzhauser D, Badrick T. Constant quest for quality: digital cytopathology. Journal of Pathology Informatics. 2018;9.
91. Van Es SL, White V, Ross J, Greaves J, Gay S, Holzhauser D, et al. Digital cytopathology: A constant evolution (Comments on Capitanio et al. Digital cytology: A short review of technical and methodological approaches and applications). Cytopathology. 2019 Mar;30(2):262-3.
92. Parwani AV. Digital pathology enhances cancer diagnostics. MLO: Medical Laboratory Observer. 2017 Feb 1;49(2):25.
93. Somanchi S, Neill DB, Parwani AV. Discovering anomalous patterns in large digital pathology images. Statistics in medicine. 2018 Nov 10;37(25):3599-615.
94. Niazi MK, Parwani AV, Gurcan MN. Digital pathology and artificial intelligence. The lancet oncology. 2019 May 1;20(5):e253-61.
95. Hanna MG, Pantanowitz L, Evans AJ. Overview of contemporary guidelines in digital pathology: what is available in 2015 and what still needs to be addressed? Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2015 Jul 1;68(7):499-505.
96. Bauer TW, Schoenfield L, Slaw RJ, Yerian L, Sun Z, Henricks WH. Validation of whole slide imaging for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(4):518-524.
97. Yu H, Gao F, Jiang L, Ma S. Development of a whole slide imaging system on smartphones and evaluation with frozen section samples. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2017 Sep 15;5(9):e8242.
98. Senaras C, Niazi MK, Lozanski G, Gurcan MN. DeepFocus: detection of out-of-focus regions in whole slide digital images using deep learning. PloS one. 2018 Oct 25;13(10):e0205387.
99. Bera K, Schalper KA, Rimm DL, Velcheti V, Madabhushi A. Artificial intelligence in digital pathology—new tools for diagnosis and precision oncology. Nature reviews Clinical oncology. 2019 Nov;16(11):703-15.
100. Yamada M, Saito A, Yamamoto Y, Cosatto E, Kurata A, Nagao T, et al. Quantitative nucleic features are effective for discrimination of intraductal proliferative lesions of the breast. Journal of Pathology Informatics. 2016;7.
101. Li AC, Zhao J, Zhao C, Ma Z, Hartage R, Zhang Y, et al. Quantitative digital imaging analysis of HER2 immunohistochemistry predicts the response to anti-HER2 neoadjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast carcinoma. Breast cancer research and treatment. 2020 Apr;180(2):321-9.
102. Feng M, Deng Y, Yang L, Jing Q, Zhang Z, Xu L, et al. Automated quantitative analysis of Ki-67 staining and HE images recognition and registration based on whole tissue sections in breast carcinoma. Diagnostic Pathology. 2020 Dec;15(1):1-2.
103. Volynskaya Z, Mete O, Pakbaz S, Al-Ghamdi D, Asa SL. Ki67 quantitative interpretation: insights using image analysis. Journal of pathology informatics. 2019;10.
104. Komura D, Ishikawa S. Machine learning approaches for pathologic diagnosis. Virchows Archiv. 2019 Aug;475(2):131-8.
105. Chang HY, Jung CK, Woo JI, Lee S, Cho J, Kim SW, et al. Artificial intelligence in pathology. Journal of pathology and translational medicine. 2019 Jan;53(1):1.
106. Colling R, Pitman H, Oien K, Rajpoot N, Macklin P, CM‐Path AI in Histopathology Working Group, et al. Artificial intelligence in digital pathology: a roadmap to routine use in clinical practice. The Journal of pathology. 2019 Oct;249(2):143-50.
107. Kumar A, Prateek M. Localization of nuclei in breast cancer using whole slide imaging system supported by morphological features and shape formulas. Cancer Management and Research. 2020;12:4573.
108. Niazi MK, Yazgan E, Tavolara TE, Li W, Lee CT, Parwani A, et al. Semantic segmentation to identify bladder layers from H&E Images. Diagnostic Pathology. 2020 Dec;15(1):1-8.
109. Mahmood T, Arsalan M, Owais M, Lee MB, Park KR. Artificial intelligence-based mitosis detection in breast cancer histopathology images using faster R-CNN and deep CNNs. Journal of clinical medicine. 2020 Mar;9(3):749.
110. Komura D, Ishikawa S. Machine learning methods for histopathological image analysis. Computational and structural biotechnology journal. 2018 Jan 1;16:34-42.
111. Park S, Pantanowitz L, Parwani AV, Wells A, Oltvai ZN. Workflow organization in pathology. Clinics in laboratory medicine. 2012 Dec 1;32(4):601-22.Parwani AV. Next generation diagnostics pathology: use of digital pathology and AI tools to augment a pathological diagnosis. DiagnPathol2019;14:138.
112. Hanna MG, Reuter VE, Hameed MR, Tan LK, Chiang S, Sigel C, et al. Whole slide imaging equivalency and efficiency study: experience at a large academic center. Modern Pathology. 2019 Jul;32(7):916-28.
113. Griffin J, Treanor D. Digital pathology in clinical use: where are we now and what is holding us back? Histopathology. 2017 Jan;70(1):134-45.
Blog Author
Sambit K Mohanty, MD