Background To the authors’ knowledge, published studies reporting on the performance of the FocalPoint GS (FPGS) imaging system have yielded conflicting results to date. However, the results of the MAVARIC study indicated that the FPGS “No Further Review” (NFR) aspect of the technology demonstrated potential and warranted further investigation. The current validation study was performed prior to implementing the NFR slide reporting technology within the routine cervical screening program in Wales, United Kingdom. Methods A total of 45,317 SurePath liquid‐based cytology cervical screening samples were submitted for FPGS scanning by 4 Welsh laboratories between 2006 and 2011. The current study (Computer Assisted Evaluation, Screening and Reporting [CAESAR]), reports on a comparison between slides categorized as NFR (8130 slides) and slides manually screened as negative (93,473 slides). Both interventions had a subsequent negative quality control screen. Results The histological outcome rates of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (CIN‐2) (high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse [HSIL+]) at 2 years and subsequently 3 years after an FPGS NFR result versus a manually screened negative result were compared. Significantly fewer cases were detected in the NFR cohort compared with the manually screened cohort (P = .043 at 2 years and P = .027 at 3 years). When these cases were subcategorized as cancers and precancers, the interval cancer prevalence between NFR and manually screened samples at 2 years and 3 years was similar; however, the interval precancer prevalence for FPGS NFR was significantly lower (P = .023 at 2 years and P = .026 at 3 years) at approximately one‐half that of manual screening. Conclusions The negative predictive potential of the FPGS NFR technology is higher than that of manual screening, and the technology has quality/throughput benefits to support and enhance a laboratory cervical screening service.
Aims: The study is aimed to verify Aperio AT2 scanner for reporting on the digital pathology platform (DP) and to validate the cohort of pathologists in the interpretation of DP for routine diagnostic histopathological services in Wales, United Kingdom. Materials, Methods and Results: This was a large multicenter study involving seven hospitals across Wales and unique with 22 (largest number) pathologists participating. 7491 slides from 3001 cases were scanned on Leica Aperio AT2 scanner and reported on digital workstations with Leica software of e-slide manager. A senior pathology fellow compared DP reports with authorized reports on glass slide (GS). A panel of expert pathologists reviewed the discrepant cases under multiheader microscope to establish ground truth. 2745 out of 3001 (91%) cases showed complete concordance between DP and GS reports. Two hundred and fifty-six cases showed discrepancies in diagnosis, of which 170 (5.6%) were deemed of no clinical significance by the review panel. There were 86 (2.9%) clinically significant discrepancies in the diagnosis between DP and GS. The concordance was raised to 97.1% after discounting clinically insignificant discrepancies. Ground truth lay with DP in 28 out of 86 clinically significant discrepancies and with GS in 58 cases. Sensitivity of DP was 98.07% (confidence interval [CI] 97.57–98.56%); for GS was 99.07% (CI 98.72–99.41%). Conclusions: We concluded that Leica Aperio AT2 scanner produces adequate quality of images for routine histopathologic diagnosis. Pathologists were able to diagnose in DP with good concordance as with GS. Strengths and Limitations of this Study: Strengths of this study – This was a prospective blind study. Different pathologists reported digital and glass arms at different times giving an ambience of real-time reporting. There was standardized use of software and hardware across Wales. A strong managerial support from efficiency through the technology group was a key factor for the implementation of the study. Limitations: This study did not include Cytopathology and in situ hybridization slides. Difficulty in achieving surgical pathology practise standardization across the whole country contributed to intra-observer variations.
BACKGROUND The MAVARIC study supported the use of the FocalPoint GS (FPGS) imaging system “No Further Review” (NFR) technology for cervical screening and recommended further investigation. A validation study (Nuttall et al.) was performed by Cervical Screening Wales before implementing the NFR slide reporting technology within the cervical screening program in Wales, United Kingdom. METHOD A total of 45,317 SurePath liquid‐based cytology cervical screening samples were submitted for FPGS scanning within four Welsh cytology laboratories between 2006 and 2011. The study, Computer Assisted Evaluation, Screening and Reporting, involved scanning the slides using the FPGS and comparing the results with manual screening performed under established Cervical Screening Wales protocols. RESULTS An increased number of abnormal cases presented in the NFR reporting category, significantly greater than that previously encountered. This anomaly resulted in higher false‐negative rates with potentially life‐changing consequences for the screening participant. Subsequent investigation determined that this increase in cases created an algorithm cascade or “sump” effect, which resulted in an unprecedented increased number of samples categorized as NFR. This exceeded the calibration parameters set for the FPGS and was thought to be caused by an increase in the number of younger women attending for screening following the death of a young reality television celebrity from cervical cancer. CONCLUSION Adequate and timely calibration of FPGS technology is vital for quality assurance of the results produced, particularly following events that may impact on cervical precancer incidence rates. Failure to do so can result in potentially catastrophic screening incidents that are avoidable.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.