Comparative evaluation of slide scanners, scan settings, and cytopreparations for digital urine cytology

Acquiring well-focused digital images of cytology slides with scanners can be challenging due to the 3-dimensional nature of the slides. This study evaluates performances of whole-slide images (WSIs) obtained from 2 different cytopreparations by 2 distinct scanners with 3 focus modes.

Fourteen urine specimens were collected from patients with urothelial carcinoma. Each specimen was equally divided into 2 portions, prepared with Cytospin and ThinPrep methods and scanned for WSIs using Leica (Aperio AT2) and Hamamatsu (NanoZoomer S360) scanners, respectively. The scan settings included 3 focus modes (default, semi-auto, and manual) for single-layer scanning, along with a manual focus mode for 21 Z-layers scanning. Performance metrics were evaluated including scanning success rate, artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm-inferred atypical cell numbers and coverage rate (atypical cell numbers in single or multiple Z-layers divided by the total atypical cell numbers in 21 Z-layers), scanning time, and image file size.

The default mode had scanning success rates of 85.7% or 92.9%, depending on the scanner used. The semi-auto mode increased success to 92.9% or 100%, and manual even further to 100%. However, these changes did not affect the standardized median atypical cell numbers and coverage rates. The selection of scanners, cytopreparations, and Z-stacking influenced standardized median atypical cell numbers and coverage rates, scanning times, and image file sizes.

Both scanners showed satisfactory scanning. We recommend using semi-auto or manual focus modes to achieve a scanning success rate of up to 100%. Additionally, a minimum of 9-layer Z-stacking at 1 μm intervals is required to cover 80% of atypical cells. These advanced focus methods do not impact the number of atypical cells or their coverage rate. While Z-stacking enhances the AI algorithm's inferred quantity and coverage rates of atypical cells, it simultaneously results in longer scanning times and larger image file sizes.