数字病理学在传染性微生物检测中的应用:评估在外科病理诊断中常规使用的免疫组化和组织化学染色的优缺点。

Mehrvash Haghighi, Clare Bryce, John D Paulsen, Shafinaz Hussein, Brandon Veremis, Christian Salib, Roshanak Alialy, Mega Lahori, Yansheng Hao, Yuanxin Liang, Arnold Szporn, William Westra
{"title":"数字病理学在传染性微生物检测中的应用:评估在外科病理诊断中常规使用的免疫组化和组织化学染色的优缺点。","authors":"Mehrvash Haghighi, Clare Bryce, John D Paulsen, Shafinaz Hussein, Brandon Veremis, Christian Salib, Roshanak Alialy, Mega Lahori, Yansheng Hao, Yuanxin Liang, Arnold Szporn, William Westra","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2023-0214-OA","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>The diagnosis of some infectious diseases requires their identification in tissue specimens. As institutions adopt digital pathology for primary diagnosis, the limits of microorganism detection from digital images must be delineated.</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To assess the reliability of microorganism detection from digitized images of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains commonly used in pathology.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>Original glass slides from 620 surgical pathology cases evaluated for the presence of infectious microorganisms were digitized. Immunohistochemical stains included those for herpes simplex virus (n = 100), cytomegalovirus (n = 100), Helicobacter pylori (n = 100), and spirochetes (n = 80). Histochemical stains included mucicarmine for Cryptococcus spp (n = 20), Grocott methenamine silver for fungi (n = 100), Giemsa for H pylori (n = 100), and Ziehl-Neelsen for acid-fast bacilli (n = 20). The original diagnosis based on the glass slides was regarded as the reference standard. Six pathologists reviewed the digital images.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>Digital review was generally associated with high (ie, ≥90%) specificity and positive predictive value owing to a low percentage of false positive reads, whereas a high percentage of false negatives contributed to low sensitivity and negative predictive value for many stains. Fleiss κ showed substantial interobserver agreement in the interpretation of Grocott methenamine silver and immunostains for herpes simplex virus, H pylori, and cytomegalovirus; moderate agreement for spirochete, Ziehl-Neelsen, and mucicarmine; and poor agreement for Giemsa.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>Digital immunohistochemistry generally outperforms histochemical stains for microorganism detection. Digital interpretation of Ziehl-Neelsen and mucicarmine stains is associated with low scores for interrater reliability, accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value such that it should not substitute for conventional review of glass slides.</p>","PeriodicalId":93883,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital Pathology in the Detection of Infectious Microorganisms: An Evaluation of Its Strengths and Weaknesses Across a Panel of Immunohistochemical and Histochemical Stains Routinely Used in Diagnostic Surgical Pathology.\",\"authors\":\"Mehrvash Haghighi, Clare Bryce, John D Paulsen, Shafinaz Hussein, Brandon Veremis, Christian Salib, Roshanak Alialy, Mega Lahori, Yansheng Hao, Yuanxin Liang, Arnold Szporn, William Westra\",\"doi\":\"10.5858/arpa.2023-0214-OA\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>The diagnosis of some infectious diseases requires their identification in tissue specimens. As institutions adopt digital pathology for primary diagnosis, the limits of microorganism detection from digital images must be delineated.</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To assess the reliability of microorganism detection from digitized images of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains commonly used in pathology.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>Original glass slides from 620 surgical pathology cases evaluated for the presence of infectious microorganisms were digitized. Immunohistochemical stains included those for herpes simplex virus (n = 100), cytomegalovirus (n = 100), Helicobacter pylori (n = 100), and spirochetes (n = 80). Histochemical stains included mucicarmine for Cryptococcus spp (n = 20), Grocott methenamine silver for fungi (n = 100), Giemsa for H pylori (n = 100), and Ziehl-Neelsen for acid-fast bacilli (n = 20). The original diagnosis based on the glass slides was regarded as the reference standard. Six pathologists reviewed the digital images.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>Digital review was generally associated with high (ie, ≥90%) specificity and positive predictive value owing to a low percentage of false positive reads, whereas a high percentage of false negatives contributed to low sensitivity and negative predictive value for many stains. Fleiss κ showed substantial interobserver agreement in the interpretation of Grocott methenamine silver and immunostains for herpes simplex virus, H pylori, and cytomegalovirus; moderate agreement for spirochete, Ziehl-Neelsen, and mucicarmine; and poor agreement for Giemsa.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>Digital immunohistochemistry generally outperforms histochemical stains for microorganism detection. Digital interpretation of Ziehl-Neelsen and mucicarmine stains is associated with low scores for interrater reliability, accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value such that it should not substitute for conventional review of glass slides.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93883,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2023-0214-OA\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2023-0214-OA","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景某些传染病的诊断需要从组织标本中进行鉴定。随着机构采用数字病理学进行初级诊断,必须明确从数字图像中检测微生物的局限性:评估从病理学常用组织化学和免疫组化染色的数字化图像中检测微生物的可靠性:对 620 例手术病理病例的原始玻璃切片进行数字化处理,以评估是否存在感染性微生物。免疫组化染色包括单纯疱疹病毒(100 例)、巨细胞病毒(100 例)、幽门螺旋杆菌(100 例)和螺旋体(80 例)。组织化学染色包括隐球菌的粘菌素染色(n = 20)、真菌的 Grocott methenamine silver 染色(n = 100)、幽门螺杆菌的 Giemsa 染色(n = 100)和耐酸杆菌的 Ziehl-Neelsen 染色(n = 20)。基于玻璃切片的原始诊断被视为参考标准。六位病理学家对数字图像进行了审查:由于假阳性读数的比例较低,数字复核通常具有较高的特异性(即≥90%)和阳性预测值,而高比例的假阴性则导致许多染色的敏感性和阴性预测值较低。弗莱斯κ显示,在解读Grocott甲氰咪胍银和单纯疱疹病毒、幽门螺杆菌和巨细胞病毒免疫印迹时,观察者之间的一致性很高;在解读螺旋体、齐氏-奈尔森和粘液胭脂红时,一致性一般;在解读Giemsa时,一致性较差:结论:在微生物检测方面,数字免疫组化通常优于组织化学染色。Ziehl-Neelsen和粘液armine染色的数字化判读在相互之间的可靠性、准确性、灵敏度和阴性预测值方面得分较低,因此不应取代玻璃切片的传统检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Digital Pathology in the Detection of Infectious Microorganisms: An Evaluation of Its Strengths and Weaknesses Across a Panel of Immunohistochemical and Histochemical Stains Routinely Used in Diagnostic Surgical Pathology.

Context.—: The diagnosis of some infectious diseases requires their identification in tissue specimens. As institutions adopt digital pathology for primary diagnosis, the limits of microorganism detection from digital images must be delineated.

Objective.—: To assess the reliability of microorganism detection from digitized images of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains commonly used in pathology.

Design.—: Original glass slides from 620 surgical pathology cases evaluated for the presence of infectious microorganisms were digitized. Immunohistochemical stains included those for herpes simplex virus (n = 100), cytomegalovirus (n = 100), Helicobacter pylori (n = 100), and spirochetes (n = 80). Histochemical stains included mucicarmine for Cryptococcus spp (n = 20), Grocott methenamine silver for fungi (n = 100), Giemsa for H pylori (n = 100), and Ziehl-Neelsen for acid-fast bacilli (n = 20). The original diagnosis based on the glass slides was regarded as the reference standard. Six pathologists reviewed the digital images.

Results.—: Digital review was generally associated with high (ie, ≥90%) specificity and positive predictive value owing to a low percentage of false positive reads, whereas a high percentage of false negatives contributed to low sensitivity and negative predictive value for many stains. Fleiss κ showed substantial interobserver agreement in the interpretation of Grocott methenamine silver and immunostains for herpes simplex virus, H pylori, and cytomegalovirus; moderate agreement for spirochete, Ziehl-Neelsen, and mucicarmine; and poor agreement for Giemsa.

Conclusions.—: Digital immunohistochemistry generally outperforms histochemical stains for microorganism detection. Digital interpretation of Ziehl-Neelsen and mucicarmine stains is associated with low scores for interrater reliability, accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value such that it should not substitute for conventional review of glass slides.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lymphangioleiomyomatosis: A Review. Exploring the Incidence of Testicular Neoplasms in the Transgender Population: A Case Series. Global Pathology: A Snapshot of the Problems, the Progress, and the Potential. Pathologists Providing Direct Patient Care in Thoracic Transplant: Same Objective, Different Scope. The Impact of Pathologist Review on Peripheral Blood Smears: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 22 Laboratories.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1