Context.— The adoption of digital capture of pathology slides as whole slide images (WSI) for educational and research applications has proven utility. Objective.— To compare pathologists' primary diagnoses derived from WSI versus the standard microscope. Because WSIs differ in format and method of observation compared with the current standard glass slide microscopy, this study is critical to potential clinical adoption of digital pathology. Design.— The study enrolled a total of 2045 cases enriched for more difficult diagnostic categories and represented as 5849 slides were curated and provided for diagnosis by a team of 19 reading pathologists separately as WSI or as glass slides viewed by light microscope. Cases were reviewed by each pathologist in both modalities in randomized order with a minimum 31-day washout between modality reads for each case. Each diagnosis was compared with the original clinical reference diagnosis by an independent central adjudication review. Results.— The overall major discrepancy rates were 3.64% for WSI review and 3.20% for manual slide review diagnosis methods, a difference of 0.44% (95% CI, −0.15 to 1.03). The time to review a case averaged 5.20 minutes for WSI and 4.95 minutes for glass slides. There was no specific subset of diagnostic category that showed higher rates of modality-specific discrepancy, though some categories showed greater discrepancy than others in both modalities. Conclusions.— WSIs are noninferior to traditional glass slides for primary diagnosis in anatomic pathology.

Adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) controls the direction in which cells extrude from epithelia. APC acts in the dying cell to control where microtubules target actomyosin contraction in neighboring cells that squeeze out the dying cell. APC mutations that frequently occur in colon cancer cause cells to extrude aberrantly beneath epithelia, which could enable tumor cell invasion.

Interpretative criteria for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) have been largely based on data from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues, despite the fact that cytologic specimens, especially cell blocks, are often the only or most readily available tissue for testing. Unlike biopsy specimens, however, cytology sample processing methods can vary markedly. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of several common preanalytic variables on PD-L1 IHC. Two cell lines with strong expression of PD-L1 (H441) and no expression (MCF7) were cultured in vitro. Harvested cells were collected in PreservCyt, CytoLyt, cell culture media (RPMI), saline, and formalin. Cell blocks were prepared by the plasma-thromboplastin method or Cellient automated system and stained with the FDA-approved 28-8 PD-L1 antibody per protocol. PD-L1 expression was scored manually by 3 pathologists for stain intensity and localization and compared across preparation methods. Several IHC staining patterns were observed: complete membranous, partial membranous, globular, and cytoplasmic, with some overlap. Cellient blocks had the best interobserver agreement and cytomorphology, highest proportion of strong complete membranous staining (82%), and least amount of cytoplasmic (11%) and globular staining (8%). RPMI, saline, and formalin samples demonstrated increased amounts of cytoplasmic and globular staining relative to Cellient, while CytoLyt exhibited the poorest performance overall. Interpretation of PD-L1 IHC on cell blocks is feasible for most processing methods examined, but may require recognition of increased cytoplasmic and globular staining in some sample types. Cellient cell blocks demonstrated superior performance compared with other methods.