ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2015
Whole slide imaging for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemistry interpretation: Accuracy, Precision, and reproducibility studies for digital manual and paired glass slide manual interpretation.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital validation of breast biomarkers (ER, PR, AR, and HER2) in cytology specimens using three different scanners.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022Article
- A literature review of quality, costs, process-associated with digital pathology.Journal of exercise rehabilitation · 2021Review
- Accuracy of Digital Pathologic Analysis vs Traditional Microscopy in the Interpretation of Melanocytic Lesions.JAMA dermatology · 2018Article
- Free digital image analysis software helps to resolve equivocal scores in HER2 immunohistochemistry.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2016Article
- A quantitative approach to evaluate image quality of whole slide imaging scanners.Journal of pathology informatics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of digital whole slide imaging for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) immunohistochemistry (IHC) could create improvements in workflow and performance, allowing for central archiving of specimens, distributed and remote interpretation, and the potential for additional computerized automation. PROCEDURES: The accuracy, precision, and reproducibility of manual digital interpretation for HER2 IHC were determined by comparison to manual glass slide interpretation. Inter- and intra-pathologist reproducibility and precision between the glass slide and digital interpretations of HER2 IHC were determined in 5 studies using DAKO HercepTest-stained breast cancer slides with the Philips Digital Pathology System. In 2 inter-method studies, 3 pathologists interpreted glass and digital slides in sequence or in random order with a minimum of 7 days as a washout period. These studies also measured inter-observer reproducibility and precision. Another two studies measured intra-pathologist reproducibility on cases read 10 times by glass and digital methods. One additional study evaluated the effects of adding IHC control slides with each run, using 1 pathologist interpreting glass and digital slides randomized from the sets above along with appropriate controls for each slide in the set.
resultsThe overall results show that there is no statistical difference between the variance of performance when comparing glass and digital HER2 interpretations; and there were no effects noted when control tissues were evaluated in conjunction with the test slides.
conclusionsThe results show that there is an equivalence of result when interpreting HER2 IHC slides in breast cancer by either glass slides or digital images. Digital interpretation can therefore be safely and effectively used for this purpose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.