J Pathol Transl Med.  2020 Nov;54(6):437-452. 10.4132/jptm.2020.08.27.

Recommendations for pathologic practice using digital pathology: consensus report of the Korean Society of Pathologists

• Chong Y
• Kim DC
• Jung CK
• Kim Dc
• Song SY
• Joo HJ
• Yi SY
• Medical Informatics Study Group of the Korean Society of Pathologists

• KMID: 2509497
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2020.08.27

Abstract

Digital pathology (DP) using whole slide imaging (WSI) is becoming a fundamental issue in pathology with recent advances and the rapid development of associated technologies. However, the available evidence on its diagnostic uses and practical advice for pathologists on implementing DP remains insufficient, particularly in light of the exponential growth of this industry. To inform DP implementation in Korea, we developed relevant and timely recommendations. We first performed a literature review of DP guidelines, recommendations, and position papers from major countries, as well as a review of relevant studies validating WSI. Based on that information, we prepared a draft. After several revisions, we released this draft to the public and the members of the Korean Society of Pathologists through our homepage and held an open forum for interested parties. Through that process, this final manuscript has been prepared. This recommendation contains an overview describing the background, objectives, scope of application, and basic terminology; guidelines and considerations for the hardware and software used in DP systems and the validation required for DP implementation; conclusions; and references and appendices, including literature on DP from major countries and WSI validation studies.

Keyword

Digital pathology; Guideline; Recommendations; Whole slide image; Quality; Validation

Reference

References

1. Nam S, Chong Y, Jung CK, et al. Introduction to digital pathology and computer-aided pathology. J Pathol Transl Med. 2020; 54:125–34.

2. 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? J Clin Pathol. 2015; 68:499–505.

3. Lee K, Jang S, Kim D, Lee J. Preparation of reimbursement assessment guidelines for AI-based medical technology (pathology). Seoul: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA);2019.

4. Treanor D, Williams B. The leeds guide to digital pathology. Leeds: The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS, University of Leeds;2019.

5. Japanese Society of Pathology. Digital Pathology Assessment Committee: guidelines for pathologic diagnosis using digital pathology images (clinical questions and answers). Tokyo: Japanese Society of Pathology;2019.

6. Cross S, Furness P, Igali L, Snead DR, Treanor D. Best practice recommendations for implementing digital pathology. London: The Royal College of Pathologists;2018. p. 1–43.

7. Japanese Society of Pathology. Digital Pathology Assessment Committee: technical standards for digital pathology system for pathologic diagnosis. Tokyo: Japanese Society of Pathology;2018.

8. College of American Pathologists. Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology. Northfield: College of American Pathologists;2013.

9. Garcia Rojo M, Conde A, Ordi J, et al. Guia practica para la implantacion de la patologia digital. In : Guerra Merino I, editor. Libro Blanco de la Anatomia Patologica en Espana 2015. Vitoria: Sociedad Espanola de Anatomia Patologica;2015. p. 247–78.

10. Federal Association of German Pathologists Bundesverband Deutscher Pathologen (FAGP-BDP). Guidelines digital pathology for diagnosis on (and reports of) digital images, 2018. Berlin: Federal Association of German Pathologists Bundesverband Deutscher Pathologen (FAGP-BDP);2018.

11. Canadian Association of Pathologists Telepathology Guidelines Committee, Bernard C, Chandrakanth SA, et al. Guidelines from the Canadian Association of Pathologists for establishing a telepathology service for anatomic pathology using whole-slide imaging. J Pathol Inform. 2014; 5:15.

12. College of American Pathologists. Anatomic pathology checklist: CAP accreditation program. Northfield: College of American Pathologists;2011.

13. Pantanowitz L. Clinical guidelines for telepathology. Arlington: American Telemedicine Association;2014.

14. Lowe A, Chlipala E, Elin J, Kawano Y, Long RE, Tillman D. Validation of digital pathology in a healthcare environment. San Diego: Digital Pathology Association;2011.

15. Chlipala E, Elin J, Eichhorn O, Huisman A, Krishnamurti M, Sabata B. Archival and retrieval in digital pathology systems. Madison: Digital Pathology Association;2011.

16. Ellin J, Haskvitz A, Premraj P, et al. Interoperability between anatomic pathology laboratory information systems and digital pathology systems. Madison: Digital Pathology Association;2010.

17. Cann J, Chlipala E, Ellin J, et al. Validation of digital pathology systems in the regulated nonclinical environment. Madison: Digital Pathology Association;2013.

18. US Food and Drug Administration. Technical performance assessment of digital pathology whole slide imaging devices: draft guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff. Silver Spring: US Department of Health and Human Services;2015.

19. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Clinical laboratory improvement amendments (CLIA). Baltimore: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS);2015.

20. US Department of Health and Human Services. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee. Summary report. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services;2013.

21. Long RE, Smith A, Machotka SV, et al. Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee (SRPC) paper: validation of digital pathology systems in the regulated nonclinical environment. Toxicol Pathol. 2013; 41:115–24.

22. Tuomari DL, Kemp RK, Sellers R, et al. Society of Toxicologic Pathology position paper on pathology image data: compliance with 21 CFR Parts 58 and 11. Toxicol Pathol. 2007; 35:450–5.

23. European Commission; DG Health and Consumer, Directorate B, Unit B2 ‘Health Technology and Cosmetics. Guidelines on the qualification and classification of stand alone software used in healthcare within the regulatory framework of medical devices. Brussels: European Commission;2012.

24. Rashbass J, Furness P. Telepathology: guidance from The Royal College of Pathologists. London: The Royal College of Pathologists;2005.

25. The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA). The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA): position satement: telepathology. Sydney: The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia;2014.

26. Japanese Society of Pathology. Digital Pathology Assessment Committee: guidelines for pathologic diagnosis using digital pathology images. Tokyo: Japanese Society of Pathology;2016.

27. Japanese Society of Pathology. Digital Pathology Assessment Committee: technical standards for digital pathology system for pathologic diagnosis. Tokyo: Japanese Society of Pathology;2016.

28. Japanese Society of Pathology. Digital Pathology Assessment Committee: technical standards for digital pathology system for pathologic diagnosis. Tokyo: Japanese Society of Pathology;2015.

29. Abels E, Pantanowitz L, Aeffner F, et al. Computational pathology definitions, best practices, and recommendations for regulatory guidance: a white paper from the Digital Pathology Association. J Pathol. 2019; 249:286–94.

30. Pantanowitz L, Sinard JH, Henricks WH, et al. Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013; 137:1710–22.

31. Gilbertson JR, Ho J, Anthony L, Jukic DM, Yagi Y, Parwani AV. Primary histologic diagnosis using automated whole slide imaging: a validation study. BMC Clin Pathol. 2006; 6:4.

32. Jukic DM, Drogowski LM, Martina J, Parwani AV. Clinical examination and validation of primary diagnosis in anatomic pathology using whole slide digital images. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011; 135:372–8.

33. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Nap M, Clarijs R, van Diest PJ. Whole slide images as a platform for initial diagnostics in histopathology in a medium-sized routine laboratory. J Clin Pathol. 2012; 65:1107–11.

34. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Vink A, et al. Whole slide images for primary diagnostics of gastrointestinal tract pathology: a feasibility study. Hum Pathol. 2012; 43:702–7.

35. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Vink A, et al. Whole slide images for primary diagnostics in dermatopathology: a feasibility study. J Clin Pathol. 2012; 65:152–8.

36. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Nikkels PG, ten Kate FJ, van Diest PJ. Whole slide images for primary diagnostics of paediatric pathology specimens: a feasibility study. J Clin Pathol. 2013; 66:218–23.

37. 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; 137:518–24.

38. Krishnamurthy S, Mathews K, McClure S, et al. Multi-institutional comparison of whole slide digital imaging and optical microscopy for interpretation of hematoxylin-eosin-stained breast tissue sections. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013; 137:1733–9.

39. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Jonges GN, Ten Kate FJ, Goldschmeding R, van Diest PJ. Whole slide images for primary diagnostics of urinary system pathology: a feasibility study. J Renal Inj Prev. 2014; 3:91–6.

40. Buck TP, Dilorio R, Havrilla L, O'Neill DG. Validation of a whole slide imaging system for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology: A community hospital experience. J Pathol Inform. 2014; 5:43.

41. Reyes C, Ikpatt OF, Nadji M, Cote RJ. Intra-observer reproducibility of whole slide imaging for the primary diagnosis of breast needle biopsies. J Pathol Inform. 2014; 5:5.

42. Ordi J, Castillo P, Saco A, et al. Validation of whole slide imaging in the primary diagnosis of gynaecological pathology in a University Hospital. J Clin Pathol. 2015; 68:33–9.

43. Pekmezci M, Uysal SP, Orhan Y, Tihan T, Lee HS. Pitfalls in the use of whole slide imaging for the diagnosis of central nervous system tumors: a pilot study in surgical neuropathology. J Pathol Inform. 2016; 7:25.

44. Snead DR, Tsang YW, Meskiri A, et al. Validation of digital pathology imaging for primary histopathological diagnosis. Histopathology. 2016; 68:1063–72.

45. Wack K, Drogowski L, Treloar M, et al. A multisite validation of whole slide imaging for primary diagnosis using standardized data collection and analysis. J Pathol Inform. 2016; 7:49.

46. Kent MN, Olsen TG, Feeser TA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of virtual pathology vs traditional microscopy in a large dermatopathology study. JAMA Dermatol. 2017; 153:1285–91.

47. Saco A, Diaz A, Hernandez M, et al. Validation of whole-slide imaging in the primary diagnosis of liver biopsies in a University Hospital. Dig Liver Dis. 2017; 49:1240–6.

48. Tabata K, Mori I, Sasaki T, et al. Whole-slide imaging at primary pathological diagnosis: Validation of whole-slide imaging-based primary pathological diagnosis at twelve Japanese academic institutes. Pathol Int. 2017; 67:547–54.

49. Araujo AL, Amaral-Silva GK, Fonseca FP, et al. Validation of digital microscopy in the histopathological diagnoses of oral diseases. Virchows Arch. 2018; 473:321–7.

50. Lee JJ, Jedrych J, Pantanowitz L, Ho J. Validation of digital pathology for primary histopathological diagnosis of routine, inflammatory dermatopathology cases. Am J Dermatopathol. 2018; 40:17–23.

51. Mukhopadhyay S, Feldman MD, Abels E, et al. Whole slide imaging versus microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology: a multicenter blinded randomized noninferiority study of 1992 cases (pivotal study). Am J Surg Pathol. 2018; 42:39–52.

52. Bongaerts O, Clevers C, Debets M, et al. Conventional microscopical versus digital whole-slide imaging-based diagnosis of thin-layer cervical specimens: a validation study. J Pathol Inform. 2018; 9:29.

53. Canberk S, Behzatoglu K, Caliskan CK, et al. The role of telecytology in the primary diagnosis of thyroid fine-needle aspiration specimens. Acta Cytol. 2020; 64:323–31.

54. Amin S, Mori T, Itoh T. A validation study of whole slide imaging for primary diagnosis of lymphoma. Pathol Int. 2019; 69:341–9.

55. Thrall MJ, Wimmer JL, Schwartz MR. Validation of multiple whole slide imaging scanners based on the guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015; 139:656–64.

56. Kalinski T, Zwonitzer R, Sel S, et al. Virtual 3D microscopy using multiplane whole slide images in diagnostic pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008; 130:259–64.

57. Aoyama H, Daimon Y, Tamaki T, Matsumoto H, Matsuzaki A, Yoshimi N. H. pylori infection in gastric biopsy specimens by whole slide image and inflammation assessment. Kure: Japanese Society of Digital Pathology;2018. p. 40.

58. Garcia-Rojo M. International clinical guidelines for the adoption of digital pathology: a review of technical aspects. Pathobiology. 2016; 83:99–109.

59. Roy S, Kumar Jain A, Lal S, Kini J. A study about color normalization methods for histopathology images. Micron. 2018; 114:42–61.

60. Evans AJ, Krupinski EA, Weinstein RS, Pantanowitz L. 2014 American Telemedicine Association clinical guidelines for telepathology: another important step in support of increased adoption of telepathology for patient care. J Pathol Inform. 2015; 6:13.

61. Tuominen VJ, Isola J. Linking whole-slide microscope images with DICOM by using JPEG2000 interactive protocol. J Digit Imaging. 2010; 23:454–62.

62. Singh R, Chubb L, Pantanowitz L, Parwani A. Standardization in digital pathology: supplement 145 of the DICOM standards. J Pathol Inform. 2011; 2:23.

63. DICOM Standards Committee. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM). Supplement 145: whole slide microscopic image IOD and SOP classes. Rosslyn: DICOM;2010.

64. Zwonitzer R, Kalinski T, Hofmann H, Roessner A, Bernarding J. Digital pathology: DICOM-conform draft, testbed, and first results. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2007; 87:181–8.

65. Ribback S, Flessa S, Gromoll-Bergmann K, Evert M, Dombrowski F. Virtual slide telepathology with scanner systems for intraoperative frozen-section consultation. Pathol Res Pract. 2014; 210:377–82.