We conducted a comprehensive retrospective WSI validation study of routine dermatopathology cases, adhering to CAP guidelines.
<h4 id="absSec_3">Methodh4>In all, 181 consecutive cases arranged into 3 categories (inflammatory, melanocytic, nonmelanocytic proliferations) were reviewed by 3 board-certified dermatopathologists via traditional microscopy (TM) and WSI. Intraobserver (TM vs WSI), TM intraobserver and interobserver (TM vs TM), and WSI interobserver (WSI vs WSI) concordance was interpreted using a 3-tier system.
<h4 id="absSec_4">Resultsh4>TM versus WSI intraobserver concordance (86.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 83.7-89.6) did not differ from TM versus TM intraobserver concordance (90.3%; 95% CI 86.7-93.1) or interobserver concordance (WSI: 89.9%; 95% CI 87.0-92.2, and TM: 89.5%; 95% CI 86.5-91.9). Melanocytic proliferations had the lowest TM versus WSI intraobserver concordance (75.6%; 95% CI 68.5-81.5), whereas inflammatory lesions had the highest TM versus WSI intraobserver concordance (96.1%; 95% CI 91.8-98.3). Nonmelanocytic proliferations had an intraobserver concordance of 89.1% (95% CI 83.4-93.0).
<h4 id="absSec_5">Limitationsh4>Efficiency and other logistical WSI parameters were not evaluated.
<h4 id="absSec_6">Conclusionh4>Intraobserver and interobserver diagnostic concordance between WSI and TM was equivalent. Therefore, WSI appears to be a reliable diagnostic modality for dermatopathology.