Article Text

other Versions

Validation of whole slide imaging in the primary diagnosis of gynaecological pathology in a University Hospital
  1. Jaume Ordi1,2,3,
  2. Paola Castillo1,3,
  3. Adela Saco1,
  4. Marta del Pino4,
  5. Oriol Ordi2,
  6. Leonardo Rodríguez-Carunchio1,
  7. Jose Ramírez1,2
  1. 1Department of Pathology, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
  2. 2University of Barcelona, School of Medicine, Barcelona, Spain
  3. 3Centre de Recerca en Salut Internacional de Barcelona (CRESIB), Barcelona, Spain
  4. 4Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Hospital Clínic—Institut d́Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Faculty of Medicine-University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
  1. Correspondence to Professor Jaume Ordi, Department of Pathology, CRESIB (Centre de Recerca en Salut Internacional de Barcelona) -Hospital Clínic, University of Barcelona Faculty of Medicine, Barcelona, Spain, C/Villarroel 170, 08036-Barcelona, Spain; jordi{at}


Aims Experience in the use of whole slide imaging (WSI) for primary diagnosis in pathology is very limited. We aimed to determine the accuracy of interpretation of WSI compared with conventional light microscopy (CLM) in the diagnosis of routine gynaecological biopsies.

Methods All gynaecological specimens (n=452) received over a 2-month period at the Department of Pathology of the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona were analysed blindly by two gynaecological pathologists, one using CLM and the other WSI. All slides were digitised in a Ventana iScan HT (Roche diagnostics) at 200×. All discrepant diagnoses were reviewed, and a final consensus diagnosis was established. The results were evaluated by weighted κ statistics for two observers.

Results The level of interobserver agreement between WSI and CLM evaluations was almost perfect (κ value: 0.914; 95% CI 0.879 to 0.949) and increased during the study period: κ value 0.890; 95% CI 0.835 to 0.945 in the first period and 0.941; 95%; CI 0.899 to 0.983 in the second period. Major discrepancies (differences in clinical management or prognosis) were observed in 9 cases (2.0%). All discrepancies consisted of small lesions (8 high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix, one lymph node micrometastasis of an ovarian carcinoma) underdiagnosed or missed in the WSI or the CLM evaluation. Discrepancies with no or minor clinical relevance were identified in 3.8% of the biopsies. No discrepancy was related to the poor quality of the WSI image.

Conclusions Diagnosis of gynaecological specimens by WSI is accurate and may be introduced into routine diagnosis.


Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.