A comprehensive study of telecytology using robotic digital microscope and single Z-stack digital scan for fine-needle aspiration-rapid on-site evaluation

• Main Authors: Keluo Yao (Author), Rulong Shen (Author), Anil Parwani (Author), Zaibo Li (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: Elsevier, 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 2153-3539; 2153-3539; 10.4103/jpi.jpi_75_18
• Keywords: Adequacy assessment; Cohen's kappa statistics; conventional light microscopy; fine-needle aspiration-rapid on-site evaluation; intermodality agreement; NanoZoomer; preliminary diagnosis; single Z-stack digital scan; Telecytology; VisionTek digital microscope; Computer applications to medicine. Medical informatics; R858-859.7; Pathology; RB1-214
• Source: Journal of Pathology Informatics, Vol 9, Iss 1, Pp 49-49 (2018)

Background: The current technology for remote assessment of fine-needle aspiration-rapid on-site evaluation (FNA-ROSE) is limited. Recent advances may provide solutions. This study compared the performance of VisionTek digital microscope (VDM) (Sakura, Japan) and Hamamatsu NanoZoomer C9600-12 single Z-stack digital scan (SZDS) to conventional light microscopy (CLM) for FNA-ROSE. Methods: We assembled sixty FNA cases from the thyroid (n = 16), lymph node (n = 16), pancreas (n = 9), head and neck (n = 9), salivary gland (n = 5), lung (n = 4), and rectum (n = 1) based on a single institution's routine workflow. One Diff-Quik-stained slide was selected for each case. Two board-certified cytopathologists independently evaluated the cases using VDM, SZDS, and CLM. A "washout" period of at least 14 days was placed between the reviews. The results were categorized into satisfactory versus unsatisfactory for adequacy assessment (AA) and unsatisfactory, benign, atypical, suspicious, and malignant for preliminary diagnosis (PD). Results: For AA, the Cohen's kappa statistics (CKS) scores of intermodality agreement (IMA) were 0.74-0.94 (CLM vs. VDM) and 0.86-1 (CLM vs. SZDS). The discordant rates of IMA were 3.3% (4/120) for VDM versus CLM, and 1.7% (2/120) for SZDS versus CLM. For PD, the CKS scores of IMA ranged 0.7-0.93. The overall discordant rates of IMA were 15% (18/120) for CLM versus VDM and 10.8% (13/120) for CLM versus SZDS. The discordant rates of IMA with 2 or higher degrees were 5.8% (7/120) for CLM versus VDM and 1.7% (2/120) for CLM versus SZDS. The average time spent per slide was 270 s for VDM, significantly longer than that for CLM (113 s) or for SZDS (122 s). Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that both VDM and SZDS are suitable to provide AA and reasonable PD evaluation. VDM, however, has a significantly longer turnaround time and worse diagnostic performance. The study demonstrates both the potentials and challenges of using VDM and SZDS for FNA-ROSE.