PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Borowsky, Alexander D. AU - Levenson, Richard M. AU - Gown, Allen M. AU - Morningstar, Taryn AU - Fleury, Thomas A. AU - Henderson, Gregory AU - Schaberg, Kurt AU - Sybenga, Amelia B. AU - Glassy, Eric. F. AU - Taylor, Sandra L. AU - Fereidouni, Farzad TI - A Pilot Validation Study Comparing FIBI, a Slide-Free Imaging Method, with Standard FFPE H&E Tissue Section Histology for Primary Surgical Pathology Diagnosis AID - 10.1101/2022.03.10.22272226 DP - 2022 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2022.03.10.22272226 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/13/2022.03.10.22272226.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/13/2022.03.10.22272226.full AB - Introduction Digital pathology whole slide images (WSI) have been recently approved by the FDA for primary diagnosis in clinical surgical pathology practices. These WSI are generated by digitally scanning standard formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) H&E-stained tissue sections mounted on glass microscope slides. Novel imaging methods are being developed that can capture the surface of tissue without requiring prior fixation, paraffin embedding, or tissue sectioning. One of these methods, FIBI (Fluorescence Imitating Brightfield Imaging), an optically simple and low-cost technique, was developed by our team and used in this study.Methods 100 de-identified surgical pathology samples were obtained from the UC Davis Health Pathology Laboratory. Samples were first digitally imaged by FIBI, and then embedded in paraffin, sectioned at 4 µm, mounted on glass slides, H&E stained, and scanned using the Aperio/Leica AT2 scanner. The resulting digital images from both FIBI and H&E scan sets were uploaded to PathPresenter and viewed in random order and modality (FIBI or H&E) by each of 4 reading pathologists. After a 30-day washout, the same 100 cases, in random order, were presented in the alternate modality to what was first shown, to the same 4 reading pathologists. The data set consisted, therefore, of 100 reference diagnoses and 800 study pathologist reads (400 FIBI and 400 H&E). Each study read was compared to the reference diagnosis for that case, and also compared to that reader’s diagnosis across both modalities for each case. Categories of concordance, minor and major discordance were adjudicated by the study team based on established criteria.Results The combined category, concordance or minor discordance, was scored as “no major discordance.” The overall agreement rate (compared to the reference diagnosis), across 800 reads, was 97.9%. This consisted of 400 FIBI reads at 97.0% vs. reference and 400 H&E reads vs. reference at 98.8%. Minor discordances (defined as alternative diagnoses without clinical treatment or outcome implications) were 6.1% overall, 7.2% for FIBI and 5.0% for HE.Conclusions Pathologists without specific experience or training in FIBI imaging interpretation can provide accurate diagnosis from FIBI slide-free images. Concordance/discordance rates are similar to published rates for comparisons of WSI to standard light microscopy of glass slides for primary diagnosis that led to FDA approval. The present study was more limited in scope but suggests that a follow-on formal clinical trial is feasible. It may be possible, therefore, to develop a slide-free, non-destructive approach for primary pathology diagnosis. Such a method promises improved speed, reduced cost, and better conservation of tissue for advanced ancillary studies.Competing Interest StatementHistolix sponsored this study. RML and FF are co-founders and ADB is CMO of Histolix. TM has been an employee of Histolix. AMG is a consultant to Histolix. The other authors, with the exception of SLT, received payment from Histolix to perform the case review work but have no other relationship with the company.Funding StatementHistolix, Inc. and NIH grants NIH 1R01EB028635, NIH R33CA20288, NIH R21 CA246359 Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The UC Davis IRB Administration reviewed the following protocol and determined that it was not deemed human subjects and IRB review was not required. FWA No: 00004557, Expiration Date: April 12, 2024, IORG: 0000251I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.