Abstract
AIMS: Virtual microscopy offers major advantages for pathology practice, separating slide evaluation from slide production. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of using whole slide images as compared with routine glass slides for diagnostic purposes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Colon biopsies (n = 295) were assessed using both glass slides and whole slide images by four pathologists and two residents. Two pathologists scored the digital images of biopsies in a primary diagnostic setting. For each case, the consensus diagnosis was defined as the majority diagnosis on the study's glass slides. All diagnoses were grouped into seven main diagnostic categories, and further divided into subgroups. The overall concordance rates were 89.6% for whole slide images and 91.6% for light microscopy. The concordance rates of the subgroups 'adenoma' and 'adenocarcinoma' between whole slide images and conventional microscopy showed only small variability. The intraobserver (whole slide images versus glass slide) agreement, including subgroups, was substantial, with a mean kappa-value of 0.78, and was higher than the interobserver agreement for glass slides (interobserver kappa-value of 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows good diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility for virtual microscopy, indicating that this technology can reliably be used for pathological evaluation of colon biopsies in a primary clinical setting.
