Comparison of glass-based and whole-slide image-based grade assignment for clear-cell and papillary renal cell carcinoma: a multi-cohort, international reproducibility study.

Journal: Histopathology
Published Date:

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Histological grading of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is an important part of diagnostic evaluation. Reproducibility of RCC grading using whole-slide imaging (WSI) compared to glass-slide microscopy is understudied. The aim of the study was a head-to-head evaluation of WSI-based and glass-based grading approaches in clear-cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) subtypes. METHODS: Four cohorts of patient cases with glass slides and corresponding digitized WSI were included from two institutions (cases n, Institution 1 (I-1): ccRCC 100, pRCC 89; Institution 2 (I-2): ccRCC 97, pRCC 50). Nine board-certified pathologists provided grades, with some pathologists evaluating both glass-based and WSI-based slides in the same cohorts. An interobserver and intraobserver (different modalities) analysis was carried out, including comparisons to majority vote and consensus grades using kappa statistics. Information on prognostic endpoint (overall survival) was available for cases from Institution 1. RESULTS: In ccRCC cases, interobserver pairwise comparison among pathologists showed low to moderate agreement, similar for glass-based (kappa range 0.14-0.77) and WSI-based (0.12-0.83) approaches, with in general similar results for pRCC subtype. Significant differences could be observed for datasets stemming from two institutions: ccRCC kappa average 0.73 and 0.54 for I-1 and I-2, respectively, for glass-based, and 0.66 and 0.48 for the WSI-based approach, revealing staining differences as a potential important confounder. Intraobserver (same pathologist, same cases, glass-based vs. WSI-based) analyses revealed significant differences in assigned grades with trends to both under-grading and over-grading. For ccRCC (I-1: pathologists n = 5, I-2: n = 3), the kappa range was 0.47-0.90 for I-1 and 0.43-0.70 for I-2. In the majority vote/consensus grade analysis, there was a clear general trend to over-grading using the WSI-based approach, with more cases scored as G4. Prognostic analysis showed the value of both WSI-based and glass-based approaches. CONCLUSIONS: WSI-based grading approach for RCC results in divergent grading outcomes, with a trend to over-grading. The interobserver and especially intraobserver agreement present in low to moderate areas for both modalities warrants more standardization and exploring the potential of artificial intelligence for grading objectivization. Institute-specific staining differences might be a confounder for less reproducible RCC grading. We open-source all digital datasets and grades for education and research purposes.

Authors

  • Julian Westerdorf
    Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  • Maria Tretiakova
    University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • Richard Weiten
    Clinic of Urology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  • Alexey Pryalukhin
    Institute of Pathology, Landesklinikum Wiener Neustadt, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
  • Alexander Quaas
    Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  • Henning Reis
    Universitätsklinikum, Dr. Senckenbergisches Institut für Pathologie, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60596, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
  • Nadine Therese Gaisa
    Institute of Pathology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
  • Ibrahim Fahoum
    Institute of Pathology, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
  • Hoa Pham
    Department of Pathology, Bach Mai Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam.
  • Tarek A Bismar
    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  • Joema Felipe Lima
    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  • Marie-Lisa Eich
    Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  • Nina A Lasnitschka
    Clinic of Urology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  • Wolfgang Hulla
    Institute of Pathology, Landesklinikum Wiener Neustadt, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
  • Axel Heidenreich
    Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Urology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  • George J Netto
    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Reinhard Büttner
    Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  • Pia Paffenholz
    Department of Urology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
  • Yuri Tolkach
    Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. [email protected].

Keywords

No keywords available for this article.