Home | About CytoJournalEditorial Board | Archived articles | Search CytoJ Articles | Subscribe | Peer review policies | CytoJournal Quiz Cases
  Reviewer corner | Author corner | OA Steward’s corner | CF member’s corner | Join as CF member | Manuscript submission | Open Access (OA) Advocacy
Home
CytoJournal All 'FULL TEXT' in HTML are FREE under "open access" charter of CytoJournal.
To login for downloading any PDF OR to request TOC (Table of Content) by e-mail, please click here
Home Email this page Print this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size Cytopathology Foundation
Navigate here
  Search
 
 » Next article
 » Previous article 
 » Browse articles
  
Resource links
 »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »  Article in PDF (349 KB)
 »  Citation Manager
 »  Access Statistics
 »  Reader Comments
 »  Email Alert *
 »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
 »  Abstract
 »  Introduction
 »  Telecytology
 »  Virtual Microscopy
 »  Computer Screeni...
 »  Online Cytology
 »  Image Cytometry
 »  Conclusions
 »  Competing Intere...
 »  Authorship State...
 »  References
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed9788    
    Printed87    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded595    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 18    

Recommend this journal

 


 
REVIEW ARTICLE
CytoJournal 2009,  6:6

The impact of digital imaging in the field of cytopathology


Department of Pathology, Baystate Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Springfield, MA, USA

Date of Submission16-Nov-2008
Date of Acceptance29-Dec-2008
Date of Web Publication06-Mar-2009

Correspondence Address:
Liron Pantanowitz
Department of Pathology, Baystate Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Springfield, MA
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1742-6413.48606

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 

With the introduction of digital imaging, pathology is undergoing a digital transformation. In the field of cytology, digital images are being used for telecytology, automated screening of Pap test slides, training and education (e.g. online digital atlases), and proficiency testing. To date, there has been no systematic review on the impact of digital imaging on the practice of cytopathology. This article critically addresses the emerging role of computer-assisted screening and the application of digital imaging to the field of cytology, including telecytology, virtual microscopy, and the impact of online cytology resources. The role of novel diagnostic techniques like image cytometry is also reviewed.


Keywords: Cytology, cytometry, digital, image, informatics, Pap test, proficiency testing, screening, telecytology, virtual image


How to cite this article:
Pantanowitz L, Hornish M, Goulart RA. The impact of digital imaging in the field of cytopathology. CytoJournal 2009;6:6

How to cite this URL:
Pantanowitz L, Hornish M, Goulart RA. The impact of digital imaging in the field of cytopathology. CytoJournal [serial online] 2009 [cited 2017 Mar 27];6:6. Available from: http://www.cytojournal.com/text.asp?2009/6/1/6/48606



 » Introduction Top


A digital image is represented in a computer by a two-dimensional array of numbers (bitmap or raster image), each element of which represents a small square area of the picture, called a picture element (pixel). Such images can be transmitted or stored in a compressed form (reduced image size). Compression algorithms may be "lossless" (no loss of data) or "lossy" (some detail is lost).

Digital images can be created by a variety of input devices, such as a digital camera. The imaging process involves capture, saving (storage), editing (if necessary), and sharing (viewing, displaying, printing) digital images. [1] This process, as it relates to applications in pathology, has yet to be standardized. [2] In the field of cytology, digital images are used for telecytology, training, education (e.g. publications, conferences, and web pages), proficiency testing, and automated screening of Pap test slides. [3] In many 'developed' countries, pathologists are increasingly integrating digital images into their practice of medicine. [4-5] Image-enhanced reports are also a growing trend among pathology practices. [6] Therefore, several laboratory information system vendors are currently integrating digital image acquisition and storage modules into their products. Multiple digital images are usually needed to document cytologic features in each cytopathology case. [7] To date, there has been no systematic review on the impact of digital imaging to the practice of cytopathology. This review will discuss several digital imaging technologies currently available and analyze the literature specific to the field of cytopathology. The benefits and limitations of digital cytopathology are highlighted.


 » Telecytology Top


Telecytology, a component of the broader field of telepathology, is the practice of cytology at a distance, by using telecommunication to transmit digital images, often when the cytologist and slide (containing the patient's cytologic material) are separated by a distance. The emergence of technology that supports digital imaging, along with greater image quality and higher processing capacity of computers, has promoted the use of telecytology and telepathology. [8] Telepathology can be used for diagnosis, consultation, or education. [9-10] There have been several studies on telecytology [Table 1]. [9,11-18] Nine studies from 1996 to 2007, in which sufficient data was recorded to report on concordance and interobserver variability, have been included in [Table 1]. Both gynecological specimens (i.e. Pap tests) and nongynecological cases have been shown to be amenable to telecytology.

Concordance is a measure of agreement between a telecytology diagnosis and that rendered after a review of the glass slide. Based upon these tabulated studies, it is apparent that while concordance improved over the years, it still remains far from perfect. Improvements were likely linked to advancing technology, user training, and/or familiarity with such systems. The diagnostic reproducibility of telecytology users is judged by kappa values (> 0.75 indicates excellent agreement, 0.58 - 0.74 good, 0.40 - 0.57 fair, and 0.20 - 0.39 poor reproducibility). [Table 1] shows only modest agreement between observers, supporting the need for further training and perhaps proficiency testing in the use of telecytology.

Diagnostic accuracy (i.e. correct telecytology diagnosis correlating with the final pathology diagnosis) has only been recorded in a limited number of studies. Earlier studies found the accuracy of telecytology to be less than that of light microscopy. [11] In conjunction with technological advances, more recent studies have demonstrated improved accuracy. Therefore, it is not surprising that telecytology has been shown by some authors to be adequate for on-site rapid cytology diagnoses, [19] and may, therefore, effectively guide specimen triage. Accuracy in later studies has ranged from 83 to 100%. [9,17-18] Nevertheless, at present, follow-up review of glass slides remains an important aspect of quality assurance.

There are three types of telecytology systems: static, real-time (dynamic), and virtual (whole) slide imaging systems. Static image systems are cheaper, but they only allow the capture of a selected subset of microscopic fields. In static telecytology, preselected fields of view (FOV) (i.e. an image area produced by any camera and lens combination), captured as digital images, are forwarded to the consulting cytologist. Not surprisingly, several studies documented the time-consuming nature of acquiring digital images for static telecytology. Moreover, the digital image in static systems does not address adequacy of screening of the cytological material present on a slide. By comparison, the latter two telepathology systems permit evaluation of the entire slide, but they are costlier and may be hampered by high network traffic. With certain real-time telepathology systems, the consultant can actively operate a remote microscope with a robotic stage. Almost all of the telecytology studies have evaluated only static systems, to date. Further studies to evaluate the other telecytology systems are clearly needed.

Several limitations with regard to telecytology have been reported by investigators. In one study, for example, a higher cytotechnologist false negative rate for Pap tests was observed for telecytology, as compared to the light microscope. [11] Difficulties have included problems related to the slide (poor slide quality, low cellularity, poor staining), field selection (not representative, insufficient images), image quality (low resolution, out of focus, color quality), transmission, and interpretation. Even the most recent telecytology study from 2008 was limited by the use of black and white images with relatively poor resolution. [20] High resolution images and 24 - bit true color images show better cellular detail, and can therefore be interpreted more accurately. [13] Image compression does not appear to hamper telepathology. [21] Some researchers found that their interpretation of telecytology images was hindered by their inability to examine cellular detail and to change the image focal plane, especially in thick and overlapping cell groups. [16,22] These factors may explain why some investigators had more difficulty with glandular abnormalities, as compared to squamous abnormalities. [19]


 » Virtual Microscopy Top


Virtual microscopy (VM) or whole slide imaging (WSI) is the use of digital imaging to produce digital slides that simulate light microscopy. The entire slide is scanned and converted into a digital image. Virtual microscopy (VM) provides access to all areas of interest on a slide by using a computer or digital device, without the use of a microscope. In other words, the user can view a scanned image of the entire slide on a computer screen. Current systems are capable of complete, high speed digitization of slides, at multiple magnifications. [8] Selected scanning systems can even digitize multiple focal planes (x, y and z axes) to create a virtual slide with the ability to 'focus' at different magnifications. Current automated high-speed WSI systems are sufficient for diagnostic purposes and potentially represent a 'disruptive technology' in the traditional practice of pathology. A disruptive technology or disruptive innovation is a marketing term that refers to a technological innovation, product, or service that, when implemented, eliminates the existing dominant technologies (status quo) in a market, creates new markets, and/or drastically modifies markets. [23]

Whole slide imaging (WSI) is being used in surgical pathology for telepathology, consultation, archiving, clinical diagnosis, education, and examinations. [24] The application of VM in cytopathology has been limited to very few studies containing small numbers of cases. [25] This is surprising, as liquid-based specimens have smaller areas to scan, as compared to smears with the cellular material presented in a format typically more amenable to digital scanning, and are thus better suited for VM. Barriers to implementation of VM may include expensive initial setup, bandwidth restrictions, and the large file sizes of digitized slides. The one area of cytopathology where VM has made an appearance is proficiency testing. [26-30]

At present, manual screening and review of gynecologic cytology preparations is the current 'gold standard' for the assessment of proficiency. In certain countries such as the USA, the federal government has mandated a national proficiency testing program for gynecologic cytology. This demands that pathologists and cytotechnologists practicing in the USA undertake yearly testing using well-standardized glass slides. The use of digital images and computer-based methods has been proposed as an alternative to glass slides for proficiency testing, and has been shown to be a more cost-effective method. [29] Virtual microscopy (VM) allows participants to view digital images representing an entire cytologic glass slide at the same feature resolution currently available with light microscopy. The digital images are able to be stacked along a 3-dimensional z plane, allowing test participants to change focal planes (a key feature for the evaluation of cytologic material). However, technical and education/training advances such as improving the time required to examine digitized images are still required. For example, in one study, the individual performance based on glass slides was reported to have been better than the computer-based test. [28]


 » Computer Screening Systems Top


The Pap test has been remarkably successful as a cancer screening tool. However, as with every other medical technique or device, it is not perfect. The foundations of its design (a glass slide of smeared and stained cervical-vaginal cellular material to be reviewed by a trained human observer under light microscopy), with strengths in relative simplicity and low technical demands, have also proven to be at the root of its limitations. These limitations were recognized shortly after its widespread adoption in the 1950s, when initial efforts to automate Pap screening began. However, only as a result of significant technical and computer advances made in the past 10 to 15 years have computer screening systems been routinely utilized. [3] Apart from the USA, neural network-assisted primary screening has also been used on a large scale in Europe. [31]

In order to have accurate and efficient computer-assisted screening, the cellular material on the slide must be prepared in a standardized manner, conducive to rapid acquisition and computer processing. Problems related to thick conventional smears of exfoliated cells subject to variable air-drying artifact plagued the development of many early versions of automated screening devices during the 1950 - 1990 period. This was overcome with the fixation and processing of Pap tests via liquid-based cytology (LBC). Liquid-based cytology (LBC) for Pap tests came to fruition in the United States in 1996, when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the ThinPrep® (Cytyc, a Hologic Company, Boxborough, MA, USA) as an alternative to the conventional  Pap smear More Details. This was followed by the approval of the AutoCyte Prep® , now BD SurePath® (BD Diagnostics - TriPath, Burlington, NC, USA) in 1999, and, most recently, MonoPrep® (MonoGen, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) in 2006. Although each product is technically different in its approach, the final standardized result for each is a glass Pap slide, with its cellular component distributed in a relative monolayer, present over a reduced surface area, largely nonobscured by blood, inflammatory cells, and/or debris.

Automated laboratory instruments and screening systems have developed under two major system designs: (1) those that perform primary screening without cytotechnologist interaction, and (2) an interactive design that serves as the 'cytotechnologist's cytotechnologist', in which both the cytotechnologist and the computer depend upon each other for Pap test interpretation.

1. Primary screening systems

One of the major screening systems available today is an automated primary slide screener and archiver. The BD FocalPoint® Slide Profiler, BD Diagnostics-TriPath (formerly AutoPap® System, formerly AutoPap® 300 QC System, NeoPath, Redmond, WA) is FDA (Food and Drug Administration)-approved for both conventional smears and BD SurePath® Pap tests. In the 1990s, the PAPNET® System (Neuromedical Systems Inc., Suffern, NY) and the AutoPap 300 QC System were at the forefront of technological advances in the cervical cytology imaging race, each gaining FDA approval in the USA for the rescreening of previously manually screened conventional smears. These systems had the potential to greatly improve the yield of detecting false negative cases. [32-33] The AutoPap® System subsequently altered its screening algorithm in the mid to late 1990s, [34-35] gaining FDA approval as a primary screening device in 1998 (with conventional smears) and in 2001 (with BD SurePath® slides), and is currently known as the BD FocalPoint® Slide Profiler. PAPNET, a QC system requiring screened glass slides to be sent to central review sites with scanning stations using adaptive computer processing (neural networks), produced images of pertinent cellular fields, which were then transferred to tape cassettes or CD-ROM to be returned to the cytology laboratory for review on high-resolution monitors. [36] It has since ceased to be marketed in the USA, largely due to the associated high costs per abnormal case detected and the overall logistical issues in its workflow design. [37-38]

The BD FocalPoint® Slide Profiler is currently a self-contained unit, residing entirely on-site, within the cytopathology laboratory. Slides are scanned at varying objective levels, including high-resolution FOV scans of selected images, with computer processors assigning scores for each FOV based upon single cell, cell group, and thick cell group characteristics. These scores are then integrated into a final slide score, with each slide ranked (from 0 to 1.0) as to the likelihood that it may potentially contain a significant epithelial abnormality, [39] with the slides then being sorted into three major groups. Up to 25% of the successfully processed slides determined to have the lowest probability of containing abnormal cells (below the primary threshold) require no further review and can be directly reported as negative and archived (without human eyes examining the slide). The remaining 75% of the slides, designated as requiring human review, are further ranked in order of potential abnormality. The slide profiler also contains QC measures and checks, exceeding CLIA requirements of 10% random negative case rescreening by selecting 15% of the qualified negative cases for QC rescreen. It has the ability to automatically generate customizable work lists, slide sorting instructions, and result summaries, as well as the ability to identify inadequate Pap test samples.

2. Interactive screening systems

This screening design model relies on a close interaction between the computerized primary screener and the cytotechnologist (at a review microscope/station) in the screening interpretation of each Pap test. The major FDA-approved systems today are the ThinPrep Imaging System® (Cytyc, a Hologic Company) and the BD FocalPoint® GS (Guided Screening in concert with FocalPoint® Slide Profiler) Imaging System (BD Diagnostics - TriPath). Each interactive screening system incorporates a system to scan slides, processes the cellular data using a host of predetermined (trained) cues in imaging algorithms, and drives cytotechnologist attention using automated X-Y axis relocation to cellular fields deemed significant, with the aid of an automated microscope, or review scope. The scanners and microscopes utilize slide barcodes, with engineered hardware devices incorporated into the microscopes, which include foot switch, mouse, automated stage, and key pad, enabling the cytotechnologist to readily maneuver through the initial review of the fields of interest, with electronic and physical marking capability, and if necessary, the full standard review of the slide. As a potential third entry into the interactive screening system market, MonoGen® Inc. has recently announced that it has successfully completed proof-of-principle in its imaging effort and is now pursuing full product development.

With such interactive screening systems, the cytotechnologist benefits from improved overall job satisfaction, [40-41] decreased fatigue, and increased throughput (due to an approximately 70% reduction in the cellular surface area reviewed per negative slide). [42-43] This leads to an overall increased laboratory productivity, focused time spent on challenging cases, and attention directed to relevant fields of potential abnormality. The critical importance of human interpretation remains, as FOVs directed by the scanner rely on the diagnostic acumen of the reviewer. [40]

3. Screening system study findings

[Table 2] includes a list of representative publications examining the efficacy of computer screening systems, performed over the last 13 years (1995 - 2008). [32,39-51] The performance of modern system designs has been largely positive, perpetuating continued system development and refinement, in addition to increasing clinical use in cytopathology laboratories worldwide. As was shown in most of these studies, as well as several abstracts that have been presented at cytology meetings in recent years (2004-2008), [52-63] the benefits derived from these screening systems include increased sensitivity of squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) detection, as a result of (a) accurate and sensitive quintile ranking of primary screening or interactive screening, (b) reduction in false negative cases, and/or (c) increased productivity. The increased throughput is of particular benefit in countries where cytotechnologists are not readily available. The limitations of computer-assisted screening has been largely ascribed to the 'learning curve' encountered when employing a new technology in clinical practice, and as this is, to a large degree, a human phenomenon, it has been primarily seen with interactive systems. Adverse findings in diagnostic performance, such as an initial increase in atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) rates [40] or decreased human papilloma virus (HPV) positivity rates of ASCUS, [48] have largely been time-limited, with corrections noted in a relatively short time frame of months.


 » Online Cytology Top


The Internet is a global network of computer networks, which includes international telecommunications infrastructure. Internet functions include E-mail, the World Wide Web (web or www), and file transfer. HyperText Markup Language (HTML) used to create web pages facilitates the inclusion of digital images, in addition to text and links. Digital images on the Internet are typically available in Graphic Interchange Format (gif) image file format. GIF is a compressed bit-mapped format, designed to minimize file transfer time.

Information on the web has become increasingly useful to pathologists and has provided new opportunity for training, sharing research publications, and continuing medical education. [64-66] The Internet has also provided a mechanism for rural and underserved areas to gain access to healthcare, including cytology. [67]

Digital images have been used to develop several online cytology  Atlas More Detailses, including the well known NCI Bethesda System Web Atlas. [68] This web-based atlas consists of 349 images representing a range of morphologic findings seen on both conventional smears and liquid-based preparations. For each image, the preparation type, morphologic criteria, and interpretation using the 2001 Bethesda System terminology are provided. A subset of these images was used for the web-based Bethesda Interobserver Reproducibility Study (BIRST), which involved over 500 participants providing independent interpretations online. [69] The resulting histograms showing the distribution of interpretations for these 77 images are presented on this website.


 » Image Cytometry Top


Image cytometry is the image-based measurement of cells. Studies involving image cytometry allow very large populations of cells to be imaged and thereby analyzed. At present, the application of image cytometry to cytology is largely investigational. The most common current applications are for DNA analysis and the evaluation of immunohistochemical staining. [70] In digital image cytometry, once an image is acquired and objects of interest in the image have been selected (image segmentation), measurements can be made on them. This step, called feature extraction, leads to numerical data that can then be analyzed. Morphological assessment of cells by digital image analysis is believed to be objective and thus highly reproducible. [71] Static image analysis of the nuclear DNA content (as an indication of aneuploidy) in cytological smears of the uterine cervix has been shown to help distinguish low-grade from high-grade dysplastic lesions. [72-73] In an attempt to improve the positive predictive value for high-risk HPV in primary screening, DNA ploidy was measured, by some researchers, on the same liquid-based sample, by image cytometry in cases showing discrepancies between cytology and HPV testing. [74]

With the use of quantitative image analysis, some authors have proposed Sheffield quantitative criteria in cervical cytology, to assist in the diagnosis and grading of squamous intraepithelial lesions. [75-76] These authors found that using nuclear-to-cytoplasmic (N/C) ratios avoided problems associated with variable changes in nuclear and cytoplasmic areas, as may occur between conventional and different commercial LBC preparations. [75] Such quantitative image analysis applied to the British Society for Clinical Cytology (BSCC) quantitative criteria, to assist diagnosis in a three-tier grading system of squamous cell dyskaryosis, showed that the BSCC area N/C ratio criteria of grading squamous cell dyskaryosis required amendment. In addition, this study supported the new BSCC recommendation of low-and high-grade squamous cell categories, similar to the two-grade Bethesda System (TBS) for reporting squamous intraepithelial lesions. [76] Further studies in the field of image cytometry are anticipated.


 » Conclusions Top


Digital images have ushered in the field of virtual pathology, that being the practice of diagnostic pathology in which an analytical technique is performed at one location and the necessary elements are transmitted in electronic form to another site for diagnostic interpretation. The advantages of digital images include potentially eliminating the need for glass slides (at least at the point of examination), allowing annotation to be added to images, and the ability to rapidly transmit and remotely share images electronically for several purposes (telecytology, conferences, education, quality assurance, peer review). In the field of cytology, digital images are currently utilized in telecytology, automated screening of Pap test slides, training and education (e.g. online digital atlases), and innovative techniques such as image cytometry. Additionally, significant potential exists for the use of digital images in gynecologic proficiency testing, irrespective of whether a test format persists or a continuing education set-up is adopted in the future. We predict that in the immediate future, digital images in cytopathology will likely be utilized for the rapid retrieval and review of previously imaged archived cases (e.g. digital libraries), telecytology of on-site rapid diagnostic interpretations for specimen triage (with regard to both the potential need for specialized processing/testing and the required level of morphology-based diagnostic expertise), screening of nongynecologic specimens processed by liquid-based techniques (e.g. urine and body cavity specimens), and for communication (e.g. teleconferences), and they will undoubtedly continue to play an ever-increasing role in training, education (particularly international), primary certification examinations, and maintenance of proficiency/certification. Ultimately, all screening and final interpretation/diagnosis of cytologic specimens (in addition to histologic/surgical material) may be performed at the computer screen rather than the light microscope.

Automation in the cytology laboratory is critical to meet current and future challenges. These include growing workloads, shortage of skilled cytotechnologists, and subspecialty centralization. However, while some of these concerns (growing workload and shortage of cytotechnologists) are currently applicable in some parts of the world, the opposite concerns have been most recently expressed. [77-78] With the prospect of primary HPV screening, HPV vaccine development, and extension of the recommended screening interval in select patient subsets, the future total volume of Pap tests may be significantly reduced. Remote interpretation of automated device-selected digitized images transmitted over the Internet has the potential to provide effective screening and clinical triage to individuals in underserved populations. Multispectral image analysis is an emerging tool that utilizes both spatial and spectral image information to classify images that can be used for the differentiation between benign and malignant cells. Such image analysis is currently being explored to detect malignancy in aspiration specimens. [79-80]

Compared to radiology, where the need for film was eliminated by digital imaging, in cytopathology the diagnostic preparation of material, at present, relies on glass slides. Cytologic material on glass slides needs to be converted into digital images by imaging or scanning the slide. Therefore, virtual slides currently increase the cost of rendering a diagnosis and these costs should be justified by an increase in convenience, speed, or accuracy of diagnosis. Moreover, virtual slides at present have not been uniformly accepted by cytotechnologists and cytopathologists. [81] With current available technology, if imaged in multiple planes slides would take a relatively long time to image and result in large file sizes that may preclude speedy transmission and increase data storage costs. It is also of note that occasional published papers on imaging systems suggest that they may, in fact, have limitations in detecting koilocytes. [82] Furthermore, limitations and diagnostic errors related to telecytology have been linked by several investigators to the misinterpretation of digital images, leading some authors to actually recommend refinement of diagnostic cytologic criteria for digital images. [14-17] On the other hand, additional cytology studies are required to evaluate more advanced telepathology systems currently available, including several systems that now have the ability to change focal planes. Cytologists in Europe are at a particular advantage to test these technologies, as regulatory agency oversight appears to be less stringent than in the USA and many European countries have a national patient identification number and/or pathology data archive. The rapidity of scanning entire slides with current whole slide imagers makes digital imaging more amenable to rapid immediate interpretations of aspirated material. However, validation of digital imaging systems and their uses, reimbursement, and medicolegal issues surrounding telepathology still need to be refined. [83-84] Moreover, standardization of the entire imaging process is necessary, especially given that alteration of digital images may result in significant diagnostic misinterpretation. [85]

Finally, it should be pointed out that while LBC was designed with a major (if not primary) intent of enabling computer screening devices, this technology has generally been shown to improve and standardize the overall specimen quality, reduce unsatisfactory Pap test rates, and improve the rates of detection of significant and potentially significant cervical-vaginal lesions. In addition, the residual liquid vial sample has seemingly endless potential for use in ancillary molecular studies, above and beyond the morphologic Pap test, such as HPV DNA testing. As automated interactive computer screening continues to improve Pap test sensitivity, the evolving role of the 'digital' Pap test warrants re-examination.


 » Competing Interest Statement by all Authors Top


No competing interest to declare by any of the authors.


 » Authorship Statement by all Authors Top


Each author acknowledges that this final version was read and approved.

According to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE http://www.icmje.org)"author" is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study.

Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3. Other contributors, who do not meet these criteria for authorship, are listed in an acknowledgments section.

All authors of this article declare that we qualify for authorship as defined by ICMJE http://www.icmje.org/#author.

Each author has participated sufficiently in the work and take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content of this article.

 
 » References Top

1.Pantanowitz L, Henricks W, Beckwith B. Medical laboratory informatics. Clin Lab Med 2007;27:823-43.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Yagi Y, Gilbertson JR. Digital imaging in pathology: The case for standardization. J Telemed Telecare 2005;11:109-16.  Back to cited text no. 2  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
3.Pantanowitz L, Hornish MA, Goulart RA. Computer-assisted cervical cytology. In: Parry D, Parry E, editors. Medical informatics in obstetrics and gynecology. Medical Information Science Reference; 2008. In press.   Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Beals TF. Digital imaging in anatomic pathology. Lab Med 2001;32:327-30.  Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Pritt BS, Gibson PC, Cooper K. Digital imaging guidelines for pathology: A proposal for general and academic use. Adv Anat Pathol 2003;10:96-100.  Back to cited text no. 5  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
6.Park RV. Picturing change-enhancing every pathology report with images. ASC Bull 2007;44:9-22.  Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Stewart J, Duncan LD, Li YJ, Holla P, Sun MC, Kurtycz DF, et al . Cost/benefit analysis of incorporating static digital images of cytopathology cases into a picture archiving and communication system (abstract 16). Cancer 2006;108:346.  Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Rojo MG, Garcia GB, Mateos CP, Garcνa JG, Vicente MC. Critical comparison of 31 commercially available digital slide systems in pathology. Int J Surg Pathol 2006;14:285-30.  Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Allen EA, Ollayos CW, Tellado MV, Butler DR, Buckner SB, Williams BH, et al . Characteristics of a telecytology consultation service. Hum Pathol 2001;32:1323-6.  Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Mulford DK. Telepathology education: Reaching out to cytopathology programs throughout the country. ASC Bull 2006;43:25-30.  Back to cited text no. 10    
11.Raab SS, Zaleski MS, Thomas PA, Niemann TH, Isacson C, Jensen CS. Telecytology: Diagnostic accuracy in cervical-vaginal smears. Am J Clin Pathol 1996;105:599-603.  Back to cited text no. 11  [PUBMED]  
12.Schwarzmann P, Schenck U, Binder B, Schmid J. Is todays telepathology equipment also appropriate for telecytology? A pilot study with pap and blood smears. Adv Clin Pathol 1998;2:176-8.  Back to cited text no. 12    
13.Galvez J, Howell L, Costa MJ, Davis R. Diagnostic concordance of telecytology and conventional cytology for evaluating breast aspirates. Acta Cytol 1998;42:663-7.  Back to cited text no. 13  [PUBMED]  
14.Briscoe D, Adair CF, Thompson LD, Tellado MV, Buckner SB, Rosenthal DL, et al . Telecytologic diagnosis of breast fine needle aspiration biopsies: Intraobserver concordance. Acta Cytol 2000;44:175-80.  Back to cited text no. 14  [PUBMED]  
15.Alli PM, Ollayos CW, Thompson LD, Kapadia I, Butler DR, Williams BH, et al . Telecytology: Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of cervical-vaginal smears. Hum Pathol 2001;32:1318-22.  Back to cited text no. 15    
16.Marchevsky AM, Nelson V, Martin SE, Greaves TS, Raza AS, Zeineh J, et al . Telecytology of fine-needle aspiration biopsies of the pancreas: A study of well-differentiated adenocarcinoma and chronic pancreatitis with atypical epithelial repair changes. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;28:147-52.  Back to cited text no. 16  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
17.Yamashiro K, Kawamura N, Matsubayashi S, Dota K, Suzuki H, Mizushima H, et al . Telecytology in Hokkaido Island, Japan: Results of primary telecytodiagnosis of routine cases. Cytopathology 2004;15:221-7.  Back to cited text no. 17  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
18.Ayatollahi H, Khoei A, Mohammadian N, Sadeghian MH, Azari JB, Ghaemi MR, et al . Telemedicine in diagnostic pleural cytology: A feasibility study between universities in Iran and the USA. J Telemed Telecare 2007;13:363-8.  Back to cited text no. 18  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
19.Kim B, Chhieng D, Jhala N, Jhala D, Winokur T, Crowe D, et al . Dynamic telecytopathlogy has equivalent efficacy with on site rapid cytology diagnoses for pancreatic carcinoma (abstract 20). Cancer 2006;108:357.  Back to cited text no. 19    
20.Eichhorn JH, Buckner L, Buckner SB, Beech DP, Harris KA, McClure DJ, et al . Internet-based gynecologic telecytology with remote automated image selection: Results of a first-phase developmental trial. Am J Clin Pathol 2008;129:686-96.  Back to cited text no. 20  [PUBMED]  
21.Marcelo A, Fontelo P, Farolan M, Cualing H. Effect of image compression on telepathology: A randomized clinical trial. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:1653-6.  Back to cited text no. 21  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
22.Lee ES, Kim IS, Choi JS, Yeom BW, Kim HK, Han JH, et al . Accuracy and reproducibility of telecytology diagnosis of cervical smears: A tool for quality assurance programs. Am J Clin Pathol 2003;119:356-60.  Back to cited text no. 22  [PUBMED]  
23.Christensen CM, Grossman JH, Hwang J. The Innovator′s prescription. A Disruptive Solution for Health Care. McGraw Hill; 2009.  Back to cited text no. 23    
24.Weinstein RS. Innovations in medical imaging and virtual microscopy. Hum Pathol 2005;36:317-9.  Back to cited text no. 24  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
25.Steinberg DM, Ali SZ. Application of virtual microscopy in clinical cytopathology. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;25:389-96.  Back to cited text no. 25  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
26.Marchevsky AM, Wan Y, Thomas P, Krishnan L, Evans-Simon H, Haber H. Virtual microscopy as a tool for proficiency testing in cytopathology: A model using multiple digital images of Papanicolaou tests. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:1320-4.  Back to cited text no. 26  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
27.Marchevsky AM, Khurana R, Thomas P, Scharre K, Farias P, Bose S. The use of virtual microscopy for proficiency testing in gynecologic cytopathology: A feasibility study using ScanScope. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130:349-55.  Back to cited text no. 27  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
28.Gagnon M, Inhorn S, Hancock J, Keller B, Carpenter D, Merlin T, et al . Comparison of cytology proficiency testing: Glass slides vs. virtual slides. Acta Cytol 2004;48:788-94.  Back to cited text no. 28    
29.Stewart J 3rd, Miyazaki K, Bevans-Wilkins K, Ye C, Kurtycz DF, Selvaggi SM. Virtual microscopy for cytology proficiency testing: Are we there yet? Cancer 2007;111:203-9.  Back to cited text no. 29  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
30.Vooijs GP, Davey DD, Somrak TM, Goodell RM, Grohs DH, Knesel EA Jr, et al . Computerized training and proficiency testing: International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary, Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century: An International Expert Conference and Tutorial. Acta Cytol 1998;42:141-7.  Back to cited text no. 30  [PUBMED]  
31.Kok MR. Neural network-based screening in cervical cytology: Do we need the light microscope? PhD Thesis: Utrecht; 2000.  Back to cited text no. 31    
32.Colgan TJ, Patten SF, Lee JS. A clinical trial of the AutoPap 300 QC System for quality control of cervicovaginal cytology in the clinical laboratory. Acta Cytol 1995;39:1191-8.  Back to cited text no. 32    
33.Mango LJ, Valente PT. Neural-network-assisted analysis and microscopic rescreening in presumed negative cervical cytologic smears: A comparison. Acta Cytol 1998;42:227-32.  Back to cited text no. 33  [PUBMED]  
34.Patten SF Jr, Lee JS, Nelson AC. NeoPath AutoPap 300 automatic screener system. Acta Cytol 1996;40:45-52.  Back to cited text no. 34  [PUBMED]  
35.Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, Pawlick GF, Colgan TJ. The AutoPap System for primary screening in cervical cytology: Comparing the results or a prospective, intended-use study with routine manual practice. Acta Cytol 1998;42:214-20.  Back to cited text no. 35  [PUBMED]  
36.Denaro TJ, Herriman JM, Shapira O. PAPNET testing system: Technical update. Acta Cytol 1997;41:65-73.  Back to cited text no. 36  [PUBMED]  
37.Hutchinson ML. Assessing the costs and benefits of alternative rescreening strategies. Acta Cytol 1996;40:4-8.  Back to cited text no. 37  [PUBMED]  
38.O′Leary TJ, Tellado M, Buckner SB, Ali IS, Stevens A, Ollayos CW. PAPNET-assisted rescreening of cervical smears: Cost and accuracy compared with a 100% manual rescreening strategy. JAMA 1998;279:235-7.  Back to cited text no. 38  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
39.Bibbo M, Hawthorne C, Zimmerman B. Does use of the AutoPap assisted primary screener improve cytologic diagnosis? Acta Cytol 1999;43:23-6.  Back to cited text no. 39  [PUBMED]  
40.Lozano R. Comparison of computer-assisted and manual screening of cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104:134-8.  Back to cited text no. 40  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
41.Miller FS, Nagel LE, Kenny-Moynihan MB. Implementation of the ThinPrep imaging system in a high-volume metropolitan laboratory. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:213-7.  Back to cited text no. 41  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
42.Schledermann D, Hyldebrandt T, Ejersbo D, Hoelund B. Automated screening versus manual screening: A comparison of the ThinPrep imaging system and manual screening in a time study. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:348-52.  Back to cited text no. 42  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
43.Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, Hyne SG, Greenberg M, Clarke JM, et al . A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep imaging system. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:96-102.  Back to cited text no. 43  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
44.Alasio LM, Alphandery C, Grassi P, Ruggeri M, De Palo G, Pilotti S. Performance of the AutoPap Primary Screening System in the detection of high-risk cases in cervicovaginal smears. Acta Cytol 2001;45:704-8.  Back to cited text no. 44  [PUBMED]  
45.Teach WD. Validation of AutoPap primary screening system sensitivity and high-risk performance. Acta Cytol 2002;46:296-302.  Back to cited text no. 45    
46.Parker EM, Foti JA, Wilbur DC. FocalPoint slide classification algorithms show robust performance in classification of high-grade lesions on SurePath liquid-based cervical cytology slides. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;30:107-10.  Back to cited text no. 46  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
47.Biscotti CV, Dawson AE, Dziura B, Galup L, Darragh T, Rahemtulla A, et al . Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep imaging system. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;123:281-7.  Back to cited text no. 47  [PUBMED]  
48.Dziura B, Quinn S, Richard K. Performance of an imaging system vs. manual screening in the detection of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol 2006;50:309-11.  Back to cited text no. 48    
49.Passamonti B, Bulletti S, Camilli M, D′Amico MR, Di Dato E, Gustinucci D, et al . Evaluation of the FocalPoint GS System performance in an Italian population-based screening of cervical abnormalities. Acta Cytol 2007;51:865-71.  Back to cited text no. 49  [PUBMED]  
50.Chivukula M, Saad RS, Elishaev E, White S, Mauser N, Dabbs DJ. Introduction of the ThinPrep Imaging System™ (TIS): Experience in a high volume academic practice. CytoJournal 2007;4:6.  Back to cited text no. 50    
51.Thrall MJ, Russell DK, Bonfiglio TA, Hoda RS. Use of the ThinPrep ® Imaging System does not alter the frequency of interpreting Papanicolaou tests as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Cytojournal 2008;24;5:10.  Back to cited text no. 51    
52.Underwood D, Dawson AE. Implementation of the ThinPrep Imaging SystemTM: Impact on cytology laboratory workload, turnaround time and quality parameters (abstract 13). Acta Cytol 2004;48:662.  Back to cited text no. 52    
53.Qureschi MN, Ringer PJ. Impact of the ThinPrep Imaging System on detection rates of cervical abnormalities (abstract 63). Acta Cytol 2004;48:700-1.  Back to cited text no. 53    
54.Miller FS, Nagel L, Kenny-Moyniham M. Validation of ThinPrep Imaging System assisted screening compared to manual screening of ThinPrep pap tests (abstract 64). Acta Cytol 2004;48:701.  Back to cited text no. 54    
55.Iverson DK. Impact of the ThinPrep Imaging System on the detection of cervical abnormalities (abstract 67). Acta Cytol 2004;48:702-3.  Back to cited text no. 55    
56.West AM, Saboorian MH, Vettimattam K, Solares B, Chen H, Vela C, et al . Validation of the ThinPrep ® Imaging System (TIS) for primary screening in routine clinical practice (abstract 6). Cancer 2005;105:323.  Back to cited text no. 56    
57.Miller FS, Kenny-Moynihan MB. Comparison of quality control discrepancies in LSIL or above: Imaged versus non-imaged slides (abstract 49). Cancer 2005;105:353.  Back to cited text no. 57    
58.Friedlander MA, Rudomina D, Lin O, Gatscha RM. Thin Prep imaging system effectiveness in detection of glandular abnormalities (abstract 27). Cancer 2006;108:361.  Back to cited text no. 58    
59.Papillo J, St John T, Leiman G. Is the ThinPrep imaging system effective in low risk screening populations? (abstract 28). Cancer 2006;108:362.  Back to cited text no. 59    
60.Shokrani B, Soyage-Rabie L, Taylor M, Miller W, Carr D, Flannigan K, et al . Impact of the ThinPrep ® imaging system on detection rates of cytologic abnormality (abstract PF8). Cancer 2007;111:350.  Back to cited text no. 60    
61.Hannah JB, Wilde C. Comparison of thin prep imaging system with SurePath/Focal Point computer-assisted screening system: Increased detection of cervical abnormalities (abstract 9). Cancer 2007;111:360.  Back to cited text no. 61    
62.Schofield K, Kowalski D, Vyas R. A retrospective study of cases classified as no further review by the Focal PointTM primary screening instrument (abstract 45). Cancer 2008;114:378.  Back to cited text no. 62    
63.Reilly ME, Barroeta JE, Lwarence WD. A retrospective evaluation of the utility of the ThinPrep ® Imaging System in the detection of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions: Can we trust "The Imager" (abstract 47). Cancer 2008;114:380.  Back to cited text no. 63    
64.DiGiorgio CJ, Richert CA, Klatt E, Becich MJ. E-mail, the Internet, and information access technology in pathology. Semin Diagn Pathol 1994;11:294-304.  Back to cited text no. 64  [PUBMED]  
65.Talmon G, Abrahams NA. The Internet for pathologists: A simple schema for evaluating pathology-related Web sites and a catalog of sites useful for practicing pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005;129:742-6.  Back to cited text no. 65  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
66.Schenck U. Web based training in cytology (abstract). Acta Cytol 2007;51:260-1.  Back to cited text no. 66    
67.Yuan Q, Chang AR, Ng HK. Introduction of the Bethesda System to Mainland China with a Web-based tutorial. Acta Cytol 2003;47:415-20.  Back to cited text no. 67  [PUBMED]  
68.NCI Bethesda System. Available from: http://nih.techriver.net/. [last accessed on 2008 Sep 28].  Back to cited text no. 68    
69.Sherman ME, Dasgupta A, Schiffman M, Nayar R, Solomon D. The Bethesda Interobserver Reproducibility Study (BIRST): A web-based assessment of the Bethesda 2001 System for classifying cervical cytology. Cancer 2007;111:15-25.  Back to cited text no. 69  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
70.Rocher AE, Gonzalez A, Palaoro LA, Blanco AM. Usefulness of AgNOR technique and CEA expression in atypical metaplastic cells from cervical smears. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2006;28:130-6.  Back to cited text no. 70  [PUBMED]  
71.Watanabe S, Iwasaka T, Yokoyama M, Uchiyama M, Kaku T, Matsuyama T. Analysis of nuclear chromatin distribution in cervical glandular abnormalities. Acta Cytol 2004;48:505-13.  Back to cited text no. 71  [PUBMED]  
72.Shirata NK, Gomes NS, Garcia EA, Longatto Filho A. Nuclear DNA content analysis by static cytometry in cervical intraepithelial lesions using retrospective series of previously stained PAP smears. Adv Clin Path 2001;5:87-91.  Back to cited text no. 72  [PUBMED]  
73.Shirata NK, Longatto Filho A, Roteli-Martins C, Espoladore LM, Pittoli JE, Syrjδnen K. Applicability of liquid-based cytology to the assessment of DNA content in cervical lesions using static cytometry. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2003;25:210-4.  Back to cited text no. 73    
74.Lorenzato M, Bory JP, Cucherousset J, Nou JM, Bouttens D, Thil C, et al . Usefulness of DNA ploidy measurement on liquid-based smears showing conflicting results between cytology and high-risk human papillomavirus typing. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:708-13.  Back to cited text no. 74  [PUBMED]  
75.Slater DN, Rice S, Stewart R, Melling SE, Hewer EM, Smith JH. Proposed Sheffield quantitative criteria in cervical cytology to assist the grading of squamous cell dyskaryosis, as the British Society for Clinical Cytology definitions require amendment. Cytopathology 2005;16:179-92.  Back to cited text no. 75  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
76.Slater DN, Rice S, Stewart R, Melling SE, Hewer EM, Smith JH. Proposed Sheffield quantitative criteria in cervical cytology to assist the diagnosis and grading of squamous intra-epithelial lesions, as some Bethesda system definitions require amendment. Cytopathology 2005;16:168-78.  Back to cited text no. 76  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
77.Eltoum IA, Roberson J. Impact of HPV testing, HPV vaccine development, and changing screening frequency on national Pap test volume: Projections from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Cancer 2007;111:34-40.  Back to cited text no. 77  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
78.Eltoum IA, Roberson J. Impact of expected changes in national papanicolaou test volume on the cytotechnology labor market: an impending crisis. Am J Clin Pathol 2007;128:665-70.   Back to cited text no. 78  [PUBMED]  
79.Zalles CM, Harigopal M, Vijayvargiya A, Tedschi G, Rimm DL. Use of spectral-spatial analysis to detect malignancy in breast fine needle aspiration specimens (abstract 11). Cancer 2006;108:253.  Back to cited text no. 79    
80.Mansoor I, Zalles C, Zahid F, Gossage K, Levenson RM, Rimm DL. Fine-needle aspiration of follicular adenoma versus parathyroid adenoma: The utility of multispectral imaging in differentiating lesions with subtle cytomorphologic differences. Cancer 2008;114:22-6.  Back to cited text no. 80  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
81.Della Mea V, Demichelis F, Viel F, Dalla Palma P, Beltrami CA. User attitudes in analyzing digital slides in a quality control test bed: A preliminary study. Comput Met Prog Biomed 2006;82:177-86.  Back to cited text no. 81    
82.Zhang FF, Banks HW, Langford SM, Davey DD. Accuracy of ThinPrep Imaging System in detecting low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2007;131:773-6.  Back to cited text no. 82  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
83.O′Brien MJ, Takahashi M, Brugal G, Christen H, Gahm T, Goodell RM, et al . Digital imagery/telecytology. International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary. Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century: An International Expert Conference and Tutorial. Acta Cytol 1998;42:148-64.  Back to cited text no. 83    
84.Tsuchihashi Y, Okada Y, Ogushi Y, Mazaki T, Tsutsumi Y, Sawai T. The current status of medicolegal issues surrounding telepathology and telecytology in Japan. J Telemed Telecare 2000;6:S143-5.  Back to cited text no. 84  [PUBMED]  
85.Pinco J, Goulart RA, Otis CN, Garb J, Pantanowitz L. Impact of digital image manipulation in cytopathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009;133:57-61.  Back to cited text no. 85  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]

This article has been cited by
1 Overview of Telepathology
Navid Farahani,Liron Pantanowitz
Surgical Pathology Clinics. 2015;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Digital slide imaging in cervicovaginal cytology: A pilot study
Wright, A.M. and Smith, D. and Dhurandhar, B. and Fairley, T. and Scheiber-Pacht, M. and Chakraborty, S. and Gorman, B.K. and Mody, D. and Coffey, D.M.
Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. 2013; 137(5): 618-624
[Pubmed]
3 Telepathology in cytopathology: Challenges and opportunities
Collins, B.T.
Acta Cytologica. 2013; 57(3): 221-232
[Pubmed]
4 Virtual microscopy in cytotechnology education: Application of knowledge from virtual to glass
Donnelly, A.D. and Mukherjee, M.S. and Lyden, E.R. and Radio, S.J.
CytoJournal. 2012; 9(1)
[Pubmed]
5 Implementation of telecytology for immediate assessment of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirations compared to conventional on-site evaluation: Analysis of 240 consecutive cases
Marotti, J.D. and Johncox, V. and Ng, D. and Gonzalez, J.L. and Padmanabhan, V.
Acta Cytologica. 2012; 56(5): 548-553
[Pubmed]
6 Telecytology and its evolving role in cytopathology
Khurana, K.K.
Diagnostic Cytopathology. 2012; 40(6): 498-502
[Pubmed]
7 Static digital telepathology: A model for diagnostic and educational support to pathologists in the developing world
Sohani, A.R. and Sohani, M.A.
Analytical Cellular Pathology. 2012; 35(1): 25-30
[Pubmed]
8 Telecytology in East Africa: A feasibility study of forty cases using a static imaging system
Kumar, N. and Busarla, S.V.P. and Sayed, S. and Kirimi, J.M. and Okiro, P. and Gakinya, S.M. and Moloo, Z. and Sohani, A.R.
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2012; 18(1): 7-12
[Pubmed]
9 Digital cytology: Current state of the art and prospects for the future
Wilbur, D.C.
Acta Cytologica. 2011; 55(3): 227-238
[Pubmed]
10 Cytodiagnosis through use of a z-axis video by volunteer observers: a promising tool for external quality assessment : Cytodiagnosis through use of z-axis video
K. Yamashiro, M. Tagami, K. Azuma, A. Nakamura, O. Kato, K. Taira, M. Azuma, H. Takeda, H. Suzuki
Cytopathology. 2011; 22(2): 88
[VIEW] | [DOI]
11 Cytodiagnosis through use of a z-axis video by volunteer observers: A promising tool for external quality assessment
Yamashiro, K. and Tagami, M. and Azuma, K. and Nakamura, A. and Kato, O. and Taira, K. and Azuma, M. and Takeda, H. and Suzuki, H.
Cytopathology. 2011; 22(2): 88-94
[Pubmed]
12 Digital imaging for cytopathology: Are we there yet?
Pantanowitz, L. and Parwani, A.V. and Khalbuss, W.E.
Cytopathology. 2011; 22(2): 73-74
[Pubmed]
13 Use of telecytology for the immediate assessment of CT guided and endoscopic FNA cytology: Diagnostic accuracy, advantages, and pitfalls
Alan Heimann, Gary Maini, Sonya Hwang, Kenneth R. Shroyer, Meenakshi Singh
Diagnostic Cytopathology. 2010; : n/a
[VIEW] | [DOI]
14 Study on the reproducibility of thyroid lesions telecytology diagnoses based upon digitized images
John Georgoulakis, Stavros Archondakis, Ioannis Panayiotides, Dionisis Anninos, Lazaros Skagias, Magdalini Stamataki, George Peros, Petros Karakitsos
Diagnostic Cytopathology. 2010; : n/a
[VIEW] | [DOI]
15 “FISHing” to detect urinary and other cancers : Validation of an imaging system to aid in interpretation
G. Denice Smith, Joel S. Bentz
Cancer Cytopathology. 2010; 118(1): 56
[VIEW] | [DOI]
16 Human papillomavirus genotype detection from archival papanicolaou-stained cervical tests
Sepehr N. Tabrizi, Nicole Taylor, Michael J. McCullough, Gillian Phillips, John Wark, Dorota Gertig, Rodney W. Petersen, Marion Saville, Suzanne M. Garland
Cancer Cytopathology. 2010; 118(6): 482
[VIEW] | [DOI]
17 "FISHing" to detect urinary and other cancers: Validation of an imaging system to aid in interpretation
Smith, G.D. and Bentz, J.S.
Cancer Cytopathology. 2010; 118(1): 56-64
[Pubmed]
18 Integrating a FISH imaging system into the cytology laboratory
Denice Smith, G. and Riding, M. and Oswald, K. and Bentz, J.
CytoJournal. 2010; 7(3)
[Pubmed]



 

Top
Previous article Next article

    

  Site Map | Copyright and Disclaimer
© 2007 - CytoJournal | A journal by Cytopathology Foundation Inc with Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
New version online since 1st July '08
Open Access