Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
CONTEXT: -Whole-slide imaging technology offers promise for rapid, Internet-based telepathology consultations between institutions. Before implementation, technical issues, pathologist adaptability, and morphologic pitfalls must be well characterized. OBJECTIVE: -To determine whether interpretation of whole-slide images differed from glass-slide interpretation in difficult surgical pathology cases. DESIGN: -Diagnostically challenging pathology slides from a variety of anatomic sites from an outside laboratory were scanned into whole digital format. Digital and glass slides were independently diagnosed by 2 subspecialty pathologists. Reference, digital, and glass-slide interpretations were compared. Operator comments on technical issues were gathered. RESULTS: -Fifty-three case pairs were analyzed. There was agreement among digital, glass, and reference diagnoses in 45 cases (85%) and between digital and glass diagnoses in 48 (91%) cases. There were 5 digital cases (9%) discordant with both reference and glass diagnoses. Further review of each of these cases indicated an incorrect digital whole-slide interpretation. Neoplastic cases showed better correlation (93%) than did cases of nonneoplastic disease (88%). Comments on discordant cases related to digital whole technology focused on issues such as fine resolution and navigating ability at high magnification. CONCLUSIONS: -Overall concordance between digital whole-slide and standard glass-slide interpretations was good at 91%. Adjustments in technology, case selection, and technology familiarization should improve performance, making digital whole-slide review feasible for broader telepathology subspecialty consultation applications.
Wilbur et al. (Tue,) studied this question.