Comparative evaluation of slide scanners, scan settings, and cytopreparations for digital urine cytology

Q2 Medicine Journal of Pathology Informatics Pub Date : 2023-11-04 DOI:10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100346

Jen-Fan Hang , Yen-Chuan Ou , Wei-Lei Yang , Tang-Yi Tsao , Cheng-Hung Yeh , Chi-Bin Li , En-Yu Hsu , Po-Yen Hung , Yi-Ting Hwang , Tien-Jen Liu , Min-Che Tung

{"title":"Comparative evaluation of slide scanners, scan settings, and cytopreparations for digital urine cytology","authors":"Jen-Fan Hang , Yen-Chuan Ou , Wei-Lei Yang , Tang-Yi Tsao , Cheng-Hung Yeh , Chi-Bin Li , En-Yu Hsu , Po-Yen Hung , Yi-Ting Hwang , Tien-Jen Liu , Min-Che Tung","doi":"10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Acquiring well-focused digital images of cytology slides with scanners can be challenging due to the 3-dimensional nature of the slides. This study evaluates performances of whole-slide images (WSIs) obtained from 2 different cytopreparations by 2 distinct scanners with 3 focus modes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Fourteen urine specimens were collected from patients with urothelial carcinoma. Each specimen was equally divided into 2 portions, prepared with Cytospin and ThinPrep methods and scanned for WSIs using Leica (Aperio AT2) and Hamamatsu (NanoZoomer S360) scanners, respectively. The scan settings included 3 focus modes (default, semi-auto, and manual) for single-layer scanning, along with a manual focus mode for 21 Z-layers scanning. Performance metrics were evaluated including scanning success rate, artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm-inferred atypical cell numbers and coverage rate (atypical cell numbers in single or multiple Z-layers divided by the total atypical cell numbers in 21 Z-layers), scanning time, and image file size.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The default mode had scanning success rates of 85.7% or 92.9%, depending on the scanner used. The semi-auto mode increased success to 92.9% or 100%, and manual even further to 100%. However, these changes did not affect the standardized median atypical cell numbers and coverage rates. The selection of scanners, cytopreparations, and Z-stacking influenced standardized median atypical cell numbers and coverage rates, scanning times, and image file sizes.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Both scanners showed satisfactory scanning. We recommend using semi-auto or manual focus modes to achieve a scanning success rate of up to 100%. Additionally, a minimum of 9-layer Z-stacking at 1 μm intervals is required to cover 80% of atypical cells. These advanced focus methods do not impact the number of atypical cells or their coverage rate. While Z-stacking enhances the AI algorithm's inferred quantity and coverage rates of atypical cells, it simultaneously results in longer scanning times and larger image file sizes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37769,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pathology Informatics","volume":"15 ","pages":"Article 100346"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2153353923001608/pdfft?md5=2ee536dfedd3c029d54d522a3a6fa784&pid=1-s2.0-S2153353923001608-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pathology Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2153353923001608","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Acquiring well-focused digital images of cytology slides with scanners can be challenging due to the 3-dimensional nature of the slides. This study evaluates performances of whole-slide images (WSIs) obtained from 2 different cytopreparations by 2 distinct scanners with 3 focus modes.

Methods

Fourteen urine specimens were collected from patients with urothelial carcinoma. Each specimen was equally divided into 2 portions, prepared with Cytospin and ThinPrep methods and scanned for WSIs using Leica (Aperio AT2) and Hamamatsu (NanoZoomer S360) scanners, respectively. The scan settings included 3 focus modes (default, semi-auto, and manual) for single-layer scanning, along with a manual focus mode for 21 Z-layers scanning. Performance metrics were evaluated including scanning success rate, artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm-inferred atypical cell numbers and coverage rate (atypical cell numbers in single or multiple Z-layers divided by the total atypical cell numbers in 21 Z-layers), scanning time, and image file size.

Results

The default mode had scanning success rates of 85.7% or 92.9%, depending on the scanner used. The semi-auto mode increased success to 92.9% or 100%, and manual even further to 100%. However, these changes did not affect the standardized median atypical cell numbers and coverage rates. The selection of scanners, cytopreparations, and Z-stacking influenced standardized median atypical cell numbers and coverage rates, scanning times, and image file sizes.

Discussion

Both scanners showed satisfactory scanning. We recommend using semi-auto or manual focus modes to achieve a scanning success rate of up to 100%. Additionally, a minimum of 9-layer Z-stacking at 1 μm intervals is required to cover 80% of atypical cells. These advanced focus methods do not impact the number of atypical cells or their coverage rate. While Z-stacking enhances the AI algorithm's inferred quantity and coverage rates of atypical cells, it simultaneously results in longer scanning times and larger image file sizes.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

数字化尿液细胞学的滑动扫描仪、扫描设置和细胞修复的比较评价

由于玻片的三维性质，用扫描仪获取聚焦良好的细胞学玻片数字图像可能具有挑战性。本研究评估了两种不同的扫描仪、三种聚焦模式下从两种不同的细胞修复中获得的全片图像(wsi)的性能。方法收集14例尿路上皮癌患者尿液标本。每个标本平均分成2份，分别用Cytospin和ThinPrep方法制备，分别用Leica (Aperio AT2)和Hamamatsu (NanoZoomer S360)扫描仪扫描wsi。扫描设置包括3种对焦模式(默认，半自动和手动)，用于单层扫描，以及21 z层扫描的手动对焦模式。评估的性能指标包括扫描成功率、人工智能(AI)算法推断的非典型细胞数和覆盖率(单个或多个z层的非典型细胞数除以21个z层的非典型细胞总数)、扫描时间和图像文件大小。结果默认模式的扫描成功率分别为85.7%和92.9%，具体取决于所使用的扫描仪。半自动模式将成功率提高到92.9%或100%，手动模式甚至进一步提高到100%。然而，这些变化并不影响标准化中位数非典型细胞数和覆盖率。扫描仪的选择、细胞修复和z堆叠影响标准化中位数非典型细胞数和覆盖率、扫描时间和图像文件大小。两种扫描器显示满意的扫描。我们建议使用半自动或手动对焦模式来实现高达100%的扫描成功率。此外，至少需要以1 μm的间隔进行9层z堆叠，以覆盖80%的非典型细胞。这些先进的聚焦方法不影响非典型细胞的数量或它们的覆盖率。Z-stacking在增强AI算法推断非典型细胞数量和覆盖率的同时，导致扫描时间变长，图像文件大小变大。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Pathology Informatics Medicine-Pathology and Forensic Medicine

CiteScore

3.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

18 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Pathology Informatics (JPI) is an open access peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the advancement of pathology informatics. This is the official journal of the Association for Pathology Informatics (API). The journal aims to publish broadly about pathology informatics and freely disseminate all articles worldwide. This journal is of interest to pathologists, informaticians, academics, researchers, health IT specialists, information officers, IT staff, vendors, and anyone with an interest in informatics. We encourage submissions from anyone with an interest in the field of pathology informatics. We publish all types of papers related to pathology informatics including original research articles, technical notes, reviews, viewpoints, commentaries, editorials, symposia, meeting abstracts, book reviews, and correspondence to the editors. All submissions are subject to rigorous peer review by the well-regarded editorial board and by expert referees in appropriate specialties.