No abstract

Introduction:Whole-slide imaging (WSI) technology can be used for primary diagnosis and consultation, including intraoperative (IO) frozen section (FS). We aimed to implement and validate a digital system for the FS evaluation of cancer and transplant specimens following recommendations of the College of American Pathologists.Materials and Methods:FS cases were routinely scanned at ×20 employing the “Navigo” scanner system. IO diagnoses using glass versus digital slides after a 3-week washout period were recorded. Intraobserver concordance was evaluated using accuracy rate and kappa statistics. Feasibility of WSI diagnoses was assessed by the way of sensitivity, specificity, as well as positive and negative predictive values. Participants also completed a survey denoting scan time, time spent viewing cases, preference for glass versus WSI, image quality, interface experience, and any problems encountered.Results:Of the 125 cases submitted, 121 (436 slides) were successfully scanned including 93 oncological and 28 donor-organ FS biopsies. Four cases were excluded because of failed digitalization due to scanning problems or sample preparation artifacts. Full agreement between glass and digital-slide diagnosis was obtained in 90 of 93 (97%, κ = 0.96) oncology and in 24 of 28 (86%, κ = 0.91) transplant cases. There were two major and one minor discrepancy for cancer cases (sensitivity 100%, specificity 96%) and two major and two minor disagreements for transplant cases (sensitivity 96%, specificity 75%). Average scan and viewing/reporting time were 12 and 3 min for cancer cases, compared to 18 and 5 min for transplant cases. A high diagnostic comfort level among pathologists emerged from the survey.Conclusions:These data demonstrate that the “Navigo” digital WSI system can reliably support an IO FS service involving complicated cancer and transplant cases.

No abstract

Histopathology is an essential component of the multidisciplinary assessment of donors.

Background Although isolated caudate lobe (CL) liver resection is not a contraindication for minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), feasibility and safety of the procedure are still poorly investigated. To address this gap, we evaluate data on the Italian prospective maintained database on laparoscopic liver surgery (IgoMILS) and compare outcomes between MILS and open group. Methods Perioperative data of patients with malignancies, as colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), non-colorectal liver metastases (NCRLM) and benign liver disease, were retrospectively analyzed. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the potential selection bias for MILS and open group. Results A total of 224 patients were included in the study, 47 and 177 patients underwent MILS and open isolated CL resection, respectively. The overall complication rate was comparable between the two groups; however, severe complication rate (Dindo–Clavien grade ≥ 3) was lower in the MILS group (0% versus 6.8%, P = ns). In-hospital mortality was 0% in both groups and mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MILS group (P = 0.01). After selection of 42 MILS and 43 open CL resections by PSM analysis, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes remained similar except for the hospital stay which was not significantly shorter in MILS group. Conclusions This multi-institutional cohort study shows that MILS CL resection is feasible and safe. The surgical procedure can be technically demanding compared to open resection, whereas good perioperative outcomes can be achieved in highly selected patients.