验证用于宫颈阴道细胞学诊断的数字图像切片

Francisco Tresserra , Gemma Fabra , Olga Luque , Miriam Castélla , Carla Gómez , Carmen Fernández-Cid , Ignacio Rodríguez
{"title":"验证用于宫颈阴道细胞学诊断的数字图像切片","authors":"Francisco Tresserra ,&nbsp;Gemma Fabra ,&nbsp;Olga Luque ,&nbsp;Miriam Castélla ,&nbsp;Carla Gómez ,&nbsp;Carmen Fernández-Cid ,&nbsp;Ignacio Rodríguez","doi":"10.1016/j.patol.2024.03.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To test the diagnostic concordance between microscopic (MI) and digital (DG) observation of cervico-vaginal (CV) cytology in a validation study of the technique.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Five cytotechnologists (CT) reviewed 888 routine CV cytology cases from the Cervical Pathology Unit of our center over a 2-week period of time. The cases were first observed by MI and at the end of the day the cases were observed by DG.</p></div><div><h3>Statistical analysis used</h3><p>Agreement calculated using the Kappa index.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Most of the diagnoses corresponded to benign (64%) or inflammatory conditions (14%) and 24% corresponded to the intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (ILM) category. The overall kappa coefficient of concordance was strong (0.87). Among the different CTs it was almost perfect in two, strong in two and moderate in one. In 18 cases (10%) there were discrepancies between techniques in the category of ILM. In 10 (56%) cases there was an overdiagnosis in DG and in 8 (44%) an overdiagnosis in MI. Only in two cases, the diagnostic discrepancy exceeded one degree of difference between lesions, and they were ASCUS or AGUS for DG and CIN 2 for MI.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In this validation test in which routine cases during a two-week period have been used, observing the cases with both techniques on the same day, we have obtained a strong degree of concordance. The discordances obtained have not been considered relevant.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":39194,"journal":{"name":"Revista Espanola de Patologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of digital image slides for diagnosis in cervico-vaginal cytology\",\"authors\":\"Francisco Tresserra ,&nbsp;Gemma Fabra ,&nbsp;Olga Luque ,&nbsp;Miriam Castélla ,&nbsp;Carla Gómez ,&nbsp;Carmen Fernández-Cid ,&nbsp;Ignacio Rodríguez\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.patol.2024.03.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To test the diagnostic concordance between microscopic (MI) and digital (DG) observation of cervico-vaginal (CV) cytology in a validation study of the technique.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Five cytotechnologists (CT) reviewed 888 routine CV cytology cases from the Cervical Pathology Unit of our center over a 2-week period of time. The cases were first observed by MI and at the end of the day the cases were observed by DG.</p></div><div><h3>Statistical analysis used</h3><p>Agreement calculated using the Kappa index.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Most of the diagnoses corresponded to benign (64%) or inflammatory conditions (14%) and 24% corresponded to the intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (ILM) category. The overall kappa coefficient of concordance was strong (0.87). Among the different CTs it was almost perfect in two, strong in two and moderate in one. In 18 cases (10%) there were discrepancies between techniques in the category of ILM. In 10 (56%) cases there was an overdiagnosis in DG and in 8 (44%) an overdiagnosis in MI. Only in two cases, the diagnostic discrepancy exceeded one degree of difference between lesions, and they were ASCUS or AGUS for DG and CIN 2 for MI.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In this validation test in which routine cases during a two-week period have been used, observing the cases with both techniques on the same day, we have obtained a strong degree of concordance. The discordances obtained have not been considered relevant.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Espanola de Patologia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Espanola de Patologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1699885524000394\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Espanola de Patologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1699885524000394","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

方法五位细胞技术专家(CT)对本中心宫颈病理科的 888 例常规宫颈阴道细胞学病例进行了为期两周的复查。结果大多数诊断符合良性(64%)或炎症(14%),24%符合上皮内病变或恶性(ILM)类别。总体一致性卡帕系数很高(0.87)。在不同的 CT 中,有两种几乎完全吻合,两种吻合度较高,一种吻合度中等。在 18 个病例(10%)中,不同技术在 ILM 类别上存在差异。其中 10 例(56%)DG 诊断过度,8 例(44%)MI 诊断过度。只有两个病例的病变诊断差异超过了一度,DG 为 ASCUS 或 AGUS,MI 为 CIN 2。获得的不一致性被认为是无关紧要的。
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
Validation of digital image slides for diagnosis in cervico-vaginal cytology

Objective

To test the diagnostic concordance between microscopic (MI) and digital (DG) observation of cervico-vaginal (CV) cytology in a validation study of the technique.

Methods

Five cytotechnologists (CT) reviewed 888 routine CV cytology cases from the Cervical Pathology Unit of our center over a 2-week period of time. The cases were first observed by MI and at the end of the day the cases were observed by DG.

Statistical analysis used

Agreement calculated using the Kappa index.

Results

Most of the diagnoses corresponded to benign (64%) or inflammatory conditions (14%) and 24% corresponded to the intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (ILM) category. The overall kappa coefficient of concordance was strong (0.87). Among the different CTs it was almost perfect in two, strong in two and moderate in one. In 18 cases (10%) there were discrepancies between techniques in the category of ILM. In 10 (56%) cases there was an overdiagnosis in DG and in 8 (44%) an overdiagnosis in MI. Only in two cases, the diagnostic discrepancy exceeded one degree of difference between lesions, and they were ASCUS or AGUS for DG and CIN 2 for MI.

Conclusions

In this validation test in which routine cases during a two-week period have been used, observing the cases with both techniques on the same day, we have obtained a strong degree of concordance. The discordances obtained have not been considered relevant.

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
Revista Espanola de Patologia
Revista Espanola de Patologia Medicine-Pathology and Forensic Medicine
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
审稿时长
34 days
期刊最新文献
Comparison of B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) expression in disordered proliferative endometrium and simple endometrial hyperplasia In memoriam. Andrés Ribas Barceló (1941-2024) Unicentric Castleman disease masquerading as a gluteal mass: A diagnostic challenge Recurrencia de glomerulonefritis postrasplante renal: características clínico-patológicas Recomendaciones de la SEAP-IAP para la recolección, el almacenamiento y el uso de materiales biológicos de origen humano y los datos relacionados, destinados a la investigación. Consideración genérica de biobanco y revisión ético-legal (Parte II)
×
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