The Reproducibility Index of Pathological Diagnosis and Rare Cases. The Results of the On-line Diagnostic Competition “Final Diagnosis”
UNIM Ltd. have created the SAAS platform DPathology that can be used for saving and studying histological slides and it doesn’t require an installation of a special software. You can use the platform with all the modern internet browsers. The SAAS platform gives all the specialists a chance to analyze remotely digital histological slides. It increases the accuracy of diagnostics and speeds up the medical assessment
To indicate the importance of collecting rare cases and expert assessment via digital microscopy
Using the Digital Pathology© platform to carry out educational and competitive diagnostic measures.
Fourteen rare cases from different sub-specializations field in pathology were selected by UNIM LTD with expert’s pathologists from the Czech Republic and Italy and additionally validated in Norwayand theUK (blind method). The slides were digitized and introduced withclinical information to 250 specialists registered to take part in the competition “Final diagnosis”©.
The range of the totally correct answers varies between 3 and 56 percent. The most difficult case for the participants was the one with no tumorous pathology: ectopic hamartomatous thymoma . There were 3 percent of full match. The biggest number of full match to experts’ diagnoses can be seen in the case: Grade 2 central chondrosarcoma with 72% of agreement. To analyze the disagreements we divided them in two groups:
Mayor disagreement – potentially not correct histological diagnosis will change the clinical tactics of patient’s treatment (considering the malignant pathology as a benign pathology, considering the benign pathology as a malignant, changing the stage of disease). Potentially wrong pathological diagnosis leads to wrong course
of patient’s treatment and wrong chemotherapy, etc. Minor disagreement – potentially incorrect diagnosis doesn’t have any clinical matter. This tactic showed that the case of hyalinized endometrioid adenocarcinoma [  turned out to be the most difficult one for the participants. The range of mayor disagreement here was 66 percent, mostly because cases was interpret as carcinosarcoma (63/93), while the agreement is 14 percent. And myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma of soft tissues [ 3], with major disagreement in 67.4% (pict case 10).
All the data is shown in table 1.
|Agreement %||Minor disagreement %||Major disagreement %|
|case1, N=97||Teratocarcinosarcoma of the nasal cavity ||0,12||0,61||0,26|
|case 2, N=89||Juxtaoral organ of Chievitz ||0,13||0,50||0,37|
|case3, N=93||Mammary Analogue Secretory Carcinoma of Salivary Glands, Containing the ETV6-NTRK3 Fusion Gene ||0,365||0,48||0,15|
|case 4, N=96||Low-grade sebaceous carcinoma of the skin ||0,10||0,68||0,23|
|case 5, N=99||t(6;11) translocation carcinoma (Ro- sette-forming tumor of the kidney) ||0,31||0,35||0,32|
|case 6, N=93||Hyalinized endometrioid adenocarcinoma ||0,14||0,20||0,67|
|case 7, N=96||Ectopic hamartomatous thymoma||0,03||0,82||0,15|
|case 8, N=91||Prolapse of the fallopian tube after hyster- ectomy||0,16||0,67||0,14|
|case 9, N=87||Phosphaturic mesenchymal tumor of soft tissues with calcification||0,23||0,34||0,33|
|case 10, N=92||Myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma of soft tissues ||0,13||0,20||0,67|
|case 11, N=87||Enchondroma||0,35||0,15||0,49|
|case12, N=88||Atypical chondromatous tumor/ Grade 1 chondrosarcoma||0,20||0,42||0,375|
|case 13, N=87||Grade 2 central chondrosarcoma||0,72||0,07||0,21|
Histopathology 1996, 29(6):549-555.
 Murray S.K., Clement Ph.B., Young R.H. , Endometrioid Carcinomas of the Uterine Corpus With Sex Cord-like Formations,
Hyalinization, and Other Unusual Morphologic Features, Am J Surg Pathol 2005, 29(2):157-166.
 Michal M., Inflammatory myxoid tumor of the soft parts with bizarre giant cells, Pathology Research and Practice 1998, 194(8):529-33.
 Heffner D.K., Hyams V.J., Teratocarcinosarcoma (Malignant teratoma?) of the nasal cavity., Cancer, 1984, 53(10):2140-54.
 Sancheti S.M., Sawaimoon S., Lateef Zameer M. A. , Juxtaoral Organ of Chievitz, an Obscure Anatomical Structure Masquerading as
Per neural Invasion of Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma: Case Report and Review of Literature , International Journal of Surgical Pathology
 Skalova A., Vanecek T., Sima R., Laco J., Weinreb I., Stárek I.,Geierová M., Passador-Santos F., Ryška A., Leivo I., Kinkor Z., Michal M.,
Mammary analogue secretory carcinoma of salivary glands, containing the ETV6- NTRK3 fusion gene. Hitherto undescribed salivary gland
tumor entity. 2010, 34(5):599-608.
 Kazakov D.V., Kacerovska D., Michal M., Carcinoid-like pattern in sebaceous neoplasms. Another distinctive, previously unrecognized
pattern in extraocular sebaceous carcinoma and sebaceoma. 2005, 27(3):195-203.
 Petersson F., Vaněček T., Michal M., Martignoni G., Brunelli M., Halbhuber Z., Spagnolo D., Kuroda N., Yang X., Alvarado Cabrero I.,
Hora M., Branžovský J., Trivunic S., Kacerovská D., Steiner P., Hes O., A distinctive translocation carcinoma of the kidney; “rosette
forming,” t(6;11), HMB45-positive renal tumor: a histomorphologic, immunohistochemical, ultrastructural, and molecular genetic study of 4
cases, Human Pathology 2012, 43(7):1154-5.
 Michal M., Rokyta Z., Mejchar B., Pelikán K., Kummel M., Mukenšnabl P, Prolapse of fallopian tube after hysterectomy associated with
exuberant angiomyofibroblastic stroma response. A diagnostic pitfall, Virchows Archiv 2000, 437(4):436-439.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
4. In case of virtual slide publication the authors agree to copy the article in a structural modified version to the journal's VS archive.