Kei Tanaka, Kris Lami, Takuma Odate, Takashi Hori, Tsubasa Sato, Ethan N. Okoshi, Junya Fukuoka
{"title":"Cytology Screening Using Z-Stack Digital Slides: A Validation Study","authors":"Kei Tanaka, Kris Lami, Takuma Odate, Takashi Hori, Tsubasa Sato, Ethan N. Okoshi, Junya Fukuoka","doi":"10.1002/dc.70015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>For applications of digital pathology in cytology, challenges such as focal precision and data volume remain. The goals of this validation study are to compare diagnostic accuracy, screening time, annotation counts, and inter- and intra-observer agreement between digital slides using Z-stack scanning (z-WSI) and conventional glass slides in liquid-based cervical cytology (LBC).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We collected 91 LBC samples, with an equal number of NILM, LSIL, HSIL, and SCC cases. Four cytotechnologists evaluated cases using glass slides and z-WSI separately. They classified cases under two separate schemas: (1) “Screening-2-Category”: NILM (normal) vs. other lesions (ASC-US and above); and (2) “Morpho-3-Category”: NILM vs. LSIL (mild dysplasia) vs. ASC-H and higher (moderate dysplasia to squamous cell carcinoma) to reflect lesion severity and treatment implications.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>For Screening-2-Category classifications, inter-observer agreement was 0.685 for glass slides and 0.637 for z-WSI, with intra-observer agreement ranging from 82.4% to 95.6%. For Morpho-3-Category classifications, inter-observer agreement was 0.700 for glass slides and 0.598 for z-WSI, indicating reduced agreement with z-WSI. Accuracy was 91.2% (glass slides) and 87.1% (z-WSI) for Screening-2-Category, and 86.5% and 81.0% for Morpho-3-Category, with no significant differences. In both modalities, cytotechnologists tended to apply more annotations in true positive cases but fewer in false negative cases. Screening time for z-WSI was 2–5 min longer on average for all cytotechnologists.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>z-WSI is not completely equivalent to glass slides, but it has the potential to be used as a tool for cytology screening. Training specifically designed for WSI is expected to enhance diagnostic accuracy and improve workflow efficiency.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":11349,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic Cytopathology","volume":"53 11","pages":"568-575"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic Cytopathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dc.70015","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
For applications of digital pathology in cytology, challenges such as focal precision and data volume remain. The goals of this validation study are to compare diagnostic accuracy, screening time, annotation counts, and inter- and intra-observer agreement between digital slides using Z-stack scanning (z-WSI) and conventional glass slides in liquid-based cervical cytology (LBC).
Methods
We collected 91 LBC samples, with an equal number of NILM, LSIL, HSIL, and SCC cases. Four cytotechnologists evaluated cases using glass slides and z-WSI separately. They classified cases under two separate schemas: (1) “Screening-2-Category”: NILM (normal) vs. other lesions (ASC-US and above); and (2) “Morpho-3-Category”: NILM vs. LSIL (mild dysplasia) vs. ASC-H and higher (moderate dysplasia to squamous cell carcinoma) to reflect lesion severity and treatment implications.
Results
For Screening-2-Category classifications, inter-observer agreement was 0.685 for glass slides and 0.637 for z-WSI, with intra-observer agreement ranging from 82.4% to 95.6%. For Morpho-3-Category classifications, inter-observer agreement was 0.700 for glass slides and 0.598 for z-WSI, indicating reduced agreement with z-WSI. Accuracy was 91.2% (glass slides) and 87.1% (z-WSI) for Screening-2-Category, and 86.5% and 81.0% for Morpho-3-Category, with no significant differences. In both modalities, cytotechnologists tended to apply more annotations in true positive cases but fewer in false negative cases. Screening time for z-WSI was 2–5 min longer on average for all cytotechnologists.
Conclusion
z-WSI is not completely equivalent to glass slides, but it has the potential to be used as a tool for cytology screening. Training specifically designed for WSI is expected to enhance diagnostic accuracy and improve workflow efficiency.
期刊介绍:
Diagnostic Cytopathology is intended to provide a forum for the exchange of information in the field of cytopathology, with special emphasis on the practical, clinical aspects of the discipline. The editors invite original scientific articles, as well as special review articles, feature articles, and letters to the editor, from laboratory professionals engaged in the practice of cytopathology. Manuscripts are accepted for publication on the basis of scientific merit, practical significance, and suitability for publication in a journal dedicated to this discipline. Original articles can be considered only with the understanding that they have never been published before and that they have not been submitted for simultaneous review to another publication.