Benchmarking digital displays (monitors) for histological diagnoses: the nephropathology use case
Giorgio Cazzaniga, Francesco Mascadri, Stefano Marletta, Alessandro Caputo, Gabriele Guidi, Giovanni Gambaro, Albino Eccher, Angelo Paolo Dei Tos, Fabio Pagni, Vincenzo L’Imperio · Journal of Clinical Pathology · 2024
AIM: The digital transformation of the pathology laboratory is being continuously sustained by the introduction of innovative technologies promoting whole slide image (WSI)-based primary diagnosis. Here, we proposed a real-life benchmark of a pathology-dedicated medical monitor for the primary diagnosis of renal biopsies, evaluating the concordance between the 'traditional' microscope and commercial monitors using WSI from different scanners. METHODS: The College of American Pathologists WSI validation guidelines were used on 60 consecutive renal biopsies from three scanners (Aperio, 3DHISTECH and Hamamatsu) using pathology-dedicated medical grade (MG), professional grade (PG) and consumer-off-the-shelf (COTS) monitors, comparing results with the microscope diagnosis after a 2-week washout period. RESULTS: 1). Minor discrepancies were noted on specific scores/classifications, with MG and PG monitors closer to the reference report (r=0.98, 95% CI=0.83 to 1 vs 0.98, 95% CI=0.83 to 1 vs 0.91, 95% CI=0.76 to 1, κ=0.93, 95% CI=077 to 1 vs 0.93, 95% CI=0.77 to 1 vs 0.86, 95% CI=0.64 to 1, κ=1 vs 0.50, 95% CI=0 to 1 vs 0.50, 95% CI=0 to 1, for IgA, antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody and lupus nephritis, respectively). Streamlined Pipeline for Amyloid detection through congo red fluorescence Digital Analysis detected amyloidosis on both monitors (4 of 30, 13% cases), allowing detection of minimal interstitial deposits with slight overestimation of the Amyloid Score (average 6 vs 7). CONCLUSIONS: The digital transformation needs careful assessment of the hardware component to support a smart and safe diagnostic process. Choosing the display for WSI is critical in the process and requires adequate planning.