Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Histopathology. 2017 Nov;71(5):677-685. doi: 10.1111/his.13313. Epub 2017 Sep 13.

Pathology Imagebase-a reference image database for standardization of pathology.

Author information

1
Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
2
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
3
Laboratory Medicine Program, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
4
Department of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and Central Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
5
Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
6
Department of Urology, Laboratory of Medical Research, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
7
Department of Anatomic Pathology, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
8
Department of Pathology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
9
Aquesta Uropathology and University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
10
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
11
Department of Pathology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
12
Department of Pathology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
13
Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
14
Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.

Abstract

AIMS:

Despite efforts to standardize histopathology practice through the development of guidelines, the interpretation of morphology is still hampered by subjectivity. We here describe Pathology Imagebase, a novel mechanism for establishing an international standard for the interpretation of pathology specimens.

METHODS AND RESULTS:

The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) established a reference image database through the input of experts in the field. Three panels were formed, one each for prostate, urinary bladder and renal pathology, consisting of 24 international experts. Each of the panel members uploaded microphotographs of cases into a non-public database. The remaining 23 experts were asked to vote from a multiple-choice menu. Prior to and while voting, panel members were unable to access the results of voting by the other experts. When a consensus level of at least two-thirds or 16 votes was reached, cases were automatically transferred to the main database. Consensus was reached in a total of 287 cases across five projects on the grading of prostate, bladder and renal cancer and the classification of renal tumours and flat lesions of the bladder. The full database is available to all ISUP members at www.isupweb.org. Non-members may access a selected number of cases.

CONCLUSIONS:

It is anticipated that the database will assist pathologists in calibrating their grading, and will also promote consistency in the diagnosis of difficult cases.

KEYWORDS:

database; diagnosis; grading; pathology; standardization

PMID:
28722802
DOI:
10.1111/his.13313
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center