View Item 

Show simple item record

Impact of mobile devices on cancer diagnosis in cytology
dc.contributor.authorSantonicco, Nicola
dc.contributor.authorMarletta, Stefano
dc.contributor.authorPantanowitz, Liron
dc.contributor.authorFadda, Guido
dc.contributor.authorTroncone, Giancarlo
dc.contributor.authorBrunelli, Matteo
dc.contributor.authorGhimenton, Claudio
dc.contributor.authorAntonini, Pietro
dc.contributor.authorPaolino, Gaetano
dc.contributor.authorGirolami, Ilaria
dc.contributor.authorEccher, Albino
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-06T15:47:35Z
dc.date.available2023-02-06 10:47:34en
dc.date.available2022-01-06T15:47:35Z
dc.date.issued2022-01
dc.identifier.citationSantonicco, Nicola; Marletta, Stefano; Pantanowitz, Liron; Fadda, Guido; Troncone, Giancarlo; Brunelli, Matteo; Ghimenton, Claudio; Antonini, Pietro; Paolino, Gaetano; Girolami, Ilaria; Eccher, Albino (2022). "Impact of mobile devices on cancer diagnosis in cytology." Diagnostic Cytopathology 50(1): 34-45.
dc.identifier.issn8755-1039
dc.identifier.issn1097-0339
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/171116
dc.description.abstractBackgroundDigital pathology has widened pathologists’ opportunities to examine both surgical and cytological samples. Recently, portable mobile devices like tablets and smartphones have been tested for application with digital technologies including static, dynamic, and more recently whole slide imaging. This study aimed to review the published literature on the impact of mobile devices on cancer diagnoses in cytology. This analysis focused on their diagnostic potential, technical details, critical issues and pitfalls, and economical aspects.MethodsA systematic search was carried out in the electronic databases Embase and PubMed. Studies dealing with the application of mobile devices for diagnosing cancer on cytological specimens were included. The quality of studies was assessed with the QUADAS‐2 tool. The main themes addressed were the comparison of manual examination with light microscopy and the use of mobile tools for primary diagnosis. The technical features of different models of smartphones and tablets, software, and adapters were also studied in terms of feasibility and costs‐analysis.ResultsOf 2458 retrieved articles, 18 were included. Concordance with light microscopy was good and diagnostic performance comparable with an expert pathologist’s diagnosis. The mobile devices studied differed, sometimes significantly, in terms of speed and cost. The utility was improved by employing specifically designed adapters. Image acquisition and transmission represent the main critical points in almost all studies.ConclusionThe use of mobile devices demonstrated promising results regarding the digital evaluation of cytological samples. Widespread adoption even in underserved areas is anticipated following validation studies, technology improvements, and reduction in the costs.
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.
dc.subject.othersmartphones
dc.subject.otherWSI
dc.subject.othermobile devices
dc.subject.otherdigital cytology
dc.subject.otherdiagnostic concordance
dc.subject.otheradapters
dc.subject.othertablets
dc.titleImpact of mobile devices on cancer diagnosis in cytology
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPathology
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/171116/1/dc24890.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/171116/2/dc24890_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/dc.24890
dc.identifier.sourceDiagnostic Cytopathology
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoy S, Hartman D, Pantanowitz L, et al. Smartphone adapters for digital photomicrography. J Pathol Inform. 2014; 5 ( 1 ): 24. doi:10.4103/2153‐3539.137728
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBogoch II, Andrews JR, Speich B, et al. Short report: mobile phone microscopy for the diagnosis of soil‐transmitted helminth infections: a proof‐of‐concept study. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013; 88 ( 4 ): 626 ‐ 629. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.12‐0742
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYu H, Yang F, Rajaraman S, et al. Malaria Screener: a smartphone application for automated malaria screening. BMC Infect Dis. 2020; 20 ( 1 ): 825. doi:10.1186/s12879‐020‐05453‐1
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBreslauer DN, Maamari RN, Switz NA, Lam WA, Fletcher DA. Mobile phone based clinical microscopy for global health applications. PLoS One. 2009; 4 ( 7 ): 1 ‐ 7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006320
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLiberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009; 339: b2700 ‐ b2700. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOuzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016; 5 ( 1 ): 210. doi:10.1186/s13643‐016‐0384‐4
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLandis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33 ( 1 ): 159 ‐ 174. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/843571
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWhiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS‐2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155 ( 8 ): 529 ‐ 536. doi:10.7326/0003‐4819‐155‐8‐201110180‐00009
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMunn Z, Barker TH, Moola S, et al. Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. JBI Evid Synth. 2020; 18 ( 10 ): 2127 ‐ 2133. doi:10.11124/JBISRIR‐D‐19‐00099
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEvans AJ, Brown RW, Bui MM, et al. Validating whole slide imaging systems for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline update from the College of American Pathologists in collaboration with the American Society for Clinical Pathology and the Association for Pathology Informatics. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021; 18. doi:10.5858/arpa.2020‐0723‐CP. Online ahead of print.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePage MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAgarwal S, Zhao L, Zhang R, Hassell L. Facetime validation study: low‐cost streaming video for cytology adequacy assessment. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016; 124 ( 3 ): 213 ‐ 220. doi:10.1002/cncy.21636
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDixit S, Tanveer N, Kumar H, Diwan H. Smartphone‐assisted telecytopathology: an intraobserver concordance study. Acta Cytol. 2020; 64 ( 5 ): 399 ‐ 405. doi:10.1159/000506145
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSunny S, Baby A, James BL, et al. A smart tele‐cytology point‐of‐care platform for oral cancer screening. PLoS One. 2019; 14 ( 11 ): e0224885. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0224885
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDudas R, VandenBussche C, Baras A, Ali SZ, Olson MT. Inexpensive telecytology solutions that use the Raspberry Pi and the iPhone. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2014; 3 ( 1 ): 49 ‐ 55. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2013.09.005
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGiansanti D, Pochini M, Giovagnoli MR. Integration of tablet technologies in the e‐laboratory of cytology: a health technology assessment. Telemed J e‐Health Off J Am Telemed Assoc. 2014; 20 ( 10 ): 909 ‐ 915. doi:10.1089/tmj.2013.0235
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMachado RS, Richa R, Callegari F, et al. Instant messenger smartphone application for endosonographer/cytopathologist real‐time interaction at a distance in EUS‐FNA for solid pancreatic lesions. Endosc Int Open. 2019; 07 ( 08 ): E1027 ‐ E1030. doi:10.1055/a‐0965‐6631
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNaqvi A, Manglik N, Dudrey E, Perry C, Mulla ZD, Cervantes JL. Evaluating the performance of a low‐cost mobile phone attachable microscope in cervical cytology. BMC Womens Health. 2020; 20 ( 1 ): 60. doi:10.1186/s12905‐020‐00902‐0
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHuang YN, Peng XC, Ma S, et al. Development of whole slide imaging on smartphones and evaluation with thinprep cytology test samples: follow‐up study. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2018; 6 ( 4 ): 1 ‐ 13. doi:10.2196/mhealth.9518
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSahin D, Hacisalihoglu UP, Kirimlioglu SH. Telecytology: is it possible with smartphone images? Diagn Cytopathol. 2018; 46 ( 1 ): 40 ‐ 46. doi:10.1002/dc.23851
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSkandarajah A, Sunny SP, Gurpur P, et al. Mobile microscopy as a screening tool for oral cancer in India: a pilot study. PLoS One. 2017; 12 ( 11 ): e0188440. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0188440
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBifalco K, Zarka M, Spiczka AW, et al. Facetime validation studies in an Academic Medical Center: applicable considerations for patient safety, IT security and workflow optimization. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015; 4 ( 6 ): S7 ‐ S7. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2015.09.016
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBocklage D, Napier D, Hallahan B, Sims L. TJ N Feasibility of assessing fresh tumor quality by real‐time remote digital viewing via iPhones: a study of 195 cases. Biopreservation Biobanking. 2020; 18 ( 3 ): A8 ‐ A9.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCox J, Lintel N, Braun AL, Lazenby AJ. Design and development of a 3D‐printed apparatus to hold a smartphone for histologic examination and associated applications. Lab Invest. 2017; 97 ( suppl 1 ): 395A ‐ 395A.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePantanowitz L, Ahmed I, Cuda J, Parwani A, Monaco S. “Cyto on the go”: can tablet devices support the mobility of cytology services. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015; 4 ( 6 ): S65 ‐ S65. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2015.09.160
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWimmer J, Dhurandhar B, Fairley T, et al. A novel smartphone‐microscope camera adapter: an option for cytology consultation in low‐resource environments. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2012; 1 ( 1 ): S124 ‐ S125. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2012.08.268
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoward J, Richards D. Comparison of newer microscope phone adapters for telecytology immediate assessment in an academic center. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2017; 6 ( 5 ): S53 ‐ S54. doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2017.06.135
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKewlani S, Deepti JAP. Diagnostic accuracy of papanicolaou (PAP) smear reporting by MMS transmitted digitalised images versus conventional light microscopy. Australas Med J. 2012; 5 ( 1 ): 102 ‐ 103.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiyazaki J, Nishiyama H. Epidemiology of urothelial carcinoma. Int J Urol. 2017; 24 ( 10 ): 730 ‐ 734. doi:10.1111/iju.13376
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKothari K, Tummidi S. This “rose” has no thorns—diagnostic utility of “rapid on‐site evaluation” ( rose ) in fine needle aspiration cytology. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2019; 10 ( December ): 688 ‐ 698. doi:10.1007/s13193‐019‐00981‐y
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNardi F, Basolo F, Crescenzi A, et al. Italian consensus for the classification and reporting of thyroid cytology. J Endocrinol Invest. 2014; 37 ( 6 ): 593 ‐ 599. doi:10.1007/s40618‐014‐0062‐0
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRajchgot J, Coulibaly JT, Keiser J, et al. Mobile‐phone and handheld microscopy for neglected tropical diseases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017; 11 ( 7 ): 4 ‐ 7.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePallua JD, Brunner A, Zelger B, Schirmer M, Haybaeck J. The future of pathology is digital. Pathol Res Pract. 2020; 216 ( 9 ): 153040. doi:10.1016/j.prp.2020.153040
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJahn SW, Plass M, Moinfar F. Digital pathology: advantages, limitations and emerging perspectives. J Clin Med. 2020; 9 ( 11 ): 3697. doi:10.3390/jcm9113697.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePantanowitz L, Hornish M, Goulart R. The impact of digital imaging in the field of cytopathology. Cytojournal. 2009; 6 ( 1 ): 6. doi:10.4103/1742‐6413.48606
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKhalbuss WE, Pantanowitz L, Parwani AV. Digital imaging in cytopathology. Patholog Res Int. 2011; 2011: 264683. doi:10.4061/2011/264683
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHamilton PW, Wang Y, McCullough SJ. Virtual microscopy and digital pathology in training and education. Apmis. 2012; 120 ( 4 ): 305 ‐ 315. doi:10.1111/j.1600‐0463.2011.02869.x
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWeinstein RS, Descour MR, Liang C, et al. Telepathology overview: from concept to implementation. Hum Pathol. 2001; 32 ( 12 ): 1283 ‐ 1299. doi:10.1053/hupa.2001.29643
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZarella MD, Bowman D, Aeffner F, et al. A practical guide to whole slide imaging: a white paper from the digital pathology association. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019; 143 ( 2 ): 222 ‐ 234. doi:10.5858/arpa.2018‐0343‐RA
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGirolami I, Pantanowitz L, Marletta S, et al. Diagnostic concordance between whole slide imaging and conventional light microscopy in cytopathology: A systematic review. Cancer Cytopathol. 2020; 128 ( 1 ): 17 ‐ 28. doi:10.1002/cncy.22195
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEccher A, Girolami I. Current state of whole slide imaging use in cytopathology: pros and pitfalls. Cytopathology. 2020; 31 ( 5 ): 372 ‐ 378. doi:10.1111/cyt.12806
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSalama AM, Hanna MG, Giri D, et al. Digital validation of breast biomarkers (ER, PR, AR, and HER2) in cytology specimens using three different scanners. Mod Pathol. 2021; 13. doi:10.1038/s41379‐021‐00908‐5. Online ahead of print.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCapitanio A, Dina RE, Treanor D. Digital cytology: a short review of technical and methodological approaches and applications. Cytopathology. 2018; 29 ( 4 ): 317 ‐ 325. doi:10.1111/cyt.12554
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAsgary R, Cole H, Adongo P, et al. Acceptability and implementation challenges of smartphone‐based training of community health nurses for visual inspection with acetic acid in Ghana: mHealth and cervical cancer screening. BMJ Open. 2019; 9 ( 7 ): e030528. doi:10.1136/bmjopen‐2019‐030528.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFurdova A, Furdova A, Krcmery V. Our experience with smartphone and spherical lens for the eye fundus examination during humanitarian project in Africa. Int J Ophthalmol. 2017; 10 ( 1 ): 157 ‐ 160. doi:10.18240/ijo.2017.01.25
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCoulibaly JT, Ouattara M, D’Ambrosio MV, et al. Accuracy of mobile phone and handheld light microscopy for the diagnosis of schistosomiasis and intestinal protozoa infections in Côte d’Ivoire. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016; 10 ( 6 ): 1 ‐ 10. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0004768
dc.working.doiNOen
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
dc24890.pdf
Size:
3.860MB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
dc24890_am.pdf
Size:
708.1KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.