Jen-Fan Hang , Yen-Chuan Ou , Wei-Lei Yang , Tang-Yi Tsao , Cheng-Hung Yeh , Chi-Bin Li , En-Yu Hsu , Po-Yen Hung , Yi-Ting Hwang , Tien-Jen Liu , Min-Che Tung
{"title":"数字化尿液细胞学的滑动扫描仪、扫描设置和细胞修复的比较评价","authors":"Jen-Fan Hang , Yen-Chuan Ou , Wei-Lei Yang , Tang-Yi Tsao , Cheng-Hung Yeh , Chi-Bin Li , En-Yu Hsu , Po-Yen Hung , Yi-Ting Hwang , Tien-Jen Liu , Min-Che Tung","doi":"10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Acquiring well-focused digital images of cytology slides with scanners can be challenging due to the 3-dimensional nature of the slides. This study evaluates performances of whole-slide images (WSIs) obtained from 2 different cytopreparations by 2 distinct scanners with 3 focus modes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Fourteen urine specimens were collected from patients with urothelial carcinoma. Each specimen was equally divided into 2 portions, prepared with Cytospin and ThinPrep methods and scanned for WSIs using Leica (Aperio AT2) and Hamamatsu (NanoZoomer S360) scanners, respectively. The scan settings included 3 focus modes (default, semi-auto, and manual) for single-layer scanning, along with a manual focus mode for 21 Z-layers scanning. Performance metrics were evaluated including scanning success rate, artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm-inferred atypical cell numbers and coverage rate (atypical cell numbers in single or multiple Z-layers divided by the total atypical cell numbers in 21 Z-layers), scanning time, and image file size.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The default mode had scanning success rates of 85.7% or 92.9%, depending on the scanner used. The semi-auto mode increased success to 92.9% or 100%, and manual even further to 100%. However, these changes did not affect the standardized median atypical cell numbers and coverage rates. The selection of scanners, cytopreparations, and Z-stacking influenced standardized median atypical cell numbers and coverage rates, scanning times, and image file sizes.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Both scanners showed satisfactory scanning. We recommend using semi-auto or manual focus modes to achieve a scanning success rate of up to 100%. Additionally, a minimum of 9-layer Z-stacking at 1 μm intervals is required to cover 80% of atypical cells. These advanced focus methods do not impact the number of atypical cells or their coverage rate. While Z-stacking enhances the AI algorithm's inferred quantity and coverage rates of atypical cells, it simultaneously results in longer scanning times and larger image file sizes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37769,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pathology Informatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2153353923001608/pdfft?md5=2ee536dfedd3c029d54d522a3a6fa784&pid=1-s2.0-S2153353923001608-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of slide scanners, scan settings, and cytopreparations for digital urine cytology\",\"authors\":\"Jen-Fan Hang , Yen-Chuan Ou , Wei-Lei Yang , Tang-Yi Tsao , Cheng-Hung Yeh , Chi-Bin Li , En-Yu Hsu , Po-Yen Hung , Yi-Ting Hwang , Tien-Jen Liu , Min-Che Tung\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100346\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Acquiring well-focused digital images of cytology slides with scanners can be challenging due to the 3-dimensional nature of the slides. This study evaluates performances of whole-slide images (WSIs) obtained from 2 different cytopreparations by 2 distinct scanners with 3 focus modes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Fourteen urine specimens were collected from patients with urothelial carcinoma. Each specimen was equally divided into 2 portions, prepared with Cytospin and ThinPrep methods and scanned for WSIs using Leica (Aperio AT2) and Hamamatsu (NanoZoomer S360) scanners, respectively. The scan settings included 3 focus modes (default, semi-auto, and manual) for single-layer scanning, along with a manual focus mode for 21 Z-layers scanning. Performance metrics were evaluated including scanning success rate, artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm-inferred atypical cell numbers and coverage rate (atypical cell numbers in single or multiple Z-layers divided by the total atypical cell numbers in 21 Z-layers), scanning time, and image file size.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The default mode had scanning success rates of 85.7% or 92.9%, depending on the scanner used. The semi-auto mode increased success to 92.9% or 100%, and manual even further to 100%. However, these changes did not affect the standardized median atypical cell numbers and coverage rates. The selection of scanners, cytopreparations, and Z-stacking influenced standardized median atypical cell numbers and coverage rates, scanning times, and image file sizes.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Both scanners showed satisfactory scanning. We recommend using semi-auto or manual focus modes to achieve a scanning success rate of up to 100%. Additionally, a minimum of 9-layer Z-stacking at 1 μm intervals is required to cover 80% of atypical cells. These advanced focus methods do not impact the number of atypical cells or their coverage rate. While Z-stacking enhances the AI algorithm's inferred quantity and coverage rates of atypical cells, it simultaneously results in longer scanning times and larger image file sizes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37769,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pathology Informatics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2153353923001608/pdfft?md5=2ee536dfedd3c029d54d522a3a6fa784&pid=1-s2.0-S2153353923001608-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pathology Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2153353923001608\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pathology Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2153353923001608","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative evaluation of slide scanners, scan settings, and cytopreparations for digital urine cytology
Background
Acquiring well-focused digital images of cytology slides with scanners can be challenging due to the 3-dimensional nature of the slides. This study evaluates performances of whole-slide images (WSIs) obtained from 2 different cytopreparations by 2 distinct scanners with 3 focus modes.
Methods
Fourteen urine specimens were collected from patients with urothelial carcinoma. Each specimen was equally divided into 2 portions, prepared with Cytospin and ThinPrep methods and scanned for WSIs using Leica (Aperio AT2) and Hamamatsu (NanoZoomer S360) scanners, respectively. The scan settings included 3 focus modes (default, semi-auto, and manual) for single-layer scanning, along with a manual focus mode for 21 Z-layers scanning. Performance metrics were evaluated including scanning success rate, artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm-inferred atypical cell numbers and coverage rate (atypical cell numbers in single or multiple Z-layers divided by the total atypical cell numbers in 21 Z-layers), scanning time, and image file size.
Results
The default mode had scanning success rates of 85.7% or 92.9%, depending on the scanner used. The semi-auto mode increased success to 92.9% or 100%, and manual even further to 100%. However, these changes did not affect the standardized median atypical cell numbers and coverage rates. The selection of scanners, cytopreparations, and Z-stacking influenced standardized median atypical cell numbers and coverage rates, scanning times, and image file sizes.
Discussion
Both scanners showed satisfactory scanning. We recommend using semi-auto or manual focus modes to achieve a scanning success rate of up to 100%. Additionally, a minimum of 9-layer Z-stacking at 1 μm intervals is required to cover 80% of atypical cells. These advanced focus methods do not impact the number of atypical cells or their coverage rate. While Z-stacking enhances the AI algorithm's inferred quantity and coverage rates of atypical cells, it simultaneously results in longer scanning times and larger image file sizes.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Pathology Informatics (JPI) is an open access peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the advancement of pathology informatics. This is the official journal of the Association for Pathology Informatics (API). The journal aims to publish broadly about pathology informatics and freely disseminate all articles worldwide. This journal is of interest to pathologists, informaticians, academics, researchers, health IT specialists, information officers, IT staff, vendors, and anyone with an interest in informatics. We encourage submissions from anyone with an interest in the field of pathology informatics. We publish all types of papers related to pathology informatics including original research articles, technical notes, reviews, viewpoints, commentaries, editorials, symposia, meeting abstracts, book reviews, and correspondence to the editors. All submissions are subject to rigorous peer review by the well-regarded editorial board and by expert referees in appropriate specialties.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
