Objective: In a peer comparison educational program, transferring glass slides between laboratories and collecting responses are time- and cost-consuming. Integrating a web-based whole-slide imaging (WSI) system and online questionnaires may serve as a promising solution. Study Design: Five gynecologic Papanicolaou-stained smears and 5 nongynecologic slides were selected. The 10 whole-slide images were acquired by a Leica SCN-400 system and released via an Aperio eSlide Manager. Online questionnaires generated by Google Forms with access to the 10 whole-slide images were released to all the practitioners in Taiwan by e-mail. After closing the program, an online posttest feedback survey was conducted. Results: A total of 302 participants joined the gynecologic test, and 291 joined the nongynecologic test. The correct interpretation rates were 81.8-93.7% in the former and 28.5-93.1% in the latter. In the posttest feedback survey, there were 63.2% of the participants reporting first-time WSI experience, and 97.9% of them said they would like to participate in a similar program again. Conclusion: Integrating a web-based WSI system and online questionnaires is an easy method to access nationwide practitioners. Participants can make interpretations using WSI even without prior experience. The model is valuable for those who want to initiate a large-scale cytopathology peer comparison educational program.

Keywords:
Cytopathology education, Whole-slide imaging, Peer comparison educational program, Google Forms
1.
Davey DD, Nielsen ML, Frable WJ, Rosenstock W, Lowell DM, Kraemer BB: Improving accuracy in gynecologic cytology. Results of the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1993;117:1193-1198.
2.
Tworek J, Nayar R, Savaloja L, et al: General quality practices in gynecologic cytopathology: findings from the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytopathology Quality Consensus Conference working group 3. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013;137:190-198.
3.
Renshaw AA, Walsh MK, Blond B, et al: Robustness of validation criteria in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130:1119-1122.
4.
Khalbuss WE, Pantanowitz L, Parwani AV: Digital imaging in cytopathology. Patholog Res Int 2011;2011264683.
5.
Steinberg DM, Ali SZ: Application of virtual microscopy in clinical cytopathology. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;25:389-396.
6.
Pantanowitz L, Sinard JH, Henricks WH, et al: Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013;137:1710-1722.
7.
Dee FR: Virtual microscopy in pathology education. Hum Pathol 2009;40:1112-1121.
8.
Create a survey using Google Forms. https://support.google.com/docs/answer/87809?hl=en.
9.
Dee FR, Donnelly A, Radio S, Leaven T, Zaleski MS, Kreiter C: Utility of 2-D and 3-D virtual microscopy in cervical cytology education and testing. Acta Cytol 2007;51:523-529.
11.
Gagnon M, Inhorn S, Hancock J, et al: Comparison of cytology proficiency testing: glass slides vs virtual slides. Acta Cytol 2004;48:788-794.
12.
Gupta D, Balsara G: Extrauterine malignancies. Role of Pap smears in diagnosis and management. Acta Cytol 1999;43:806-813.
13.
Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al: The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-2119.
14.
Hughes JH, Volk EE, Wilbur DC, Cytopathology Resource Committee, College of American Pathologists: Pitfalls in salivary gland fine-needle aspiration cytology: lessons from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005;129:26-31.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.