Search

Background: The adoption of digital pathology has transformed the field of pathology, however, the economic impact and cost analysis of implementing digital pathology solutions remain a critical consideration for institutions to justify. Digital pathology implementation requires a thorough evaluation of associated costs and should identify and optimize resource allocation to facilitate informed decision-making. A dynamic cost calculator to estimate the financial implications of deploying digital pathology systems was needed to estimate the financial effects on transitioning to a digital workflow. Methods: A systematic approach was used to comprehensively assess the various components involved in implementing and maintaining a digital pathology system. This consisted of: (1) identification of key cost categories associated with digital pathology implementation; (2) data collection and analysis of cost estimation; (3) cost categorization and quantification of direct and indirect costs associated with different use cases, allowing customization of each factor based on specific intended uses and market rates, industry standards, and regional variations; (4) opportunities for savings realized by digitization of glass slides and (5) integration of the cost calculator into a unified framework for a holistic view of the financial implications associated with digital pathology implementation. The online tool enables the user to test various scenarios specific to their institution and provides adjustable parameters to assure organization specific relatability. Results: The Digital Pathology Association has developed a web-based calculator as a companion tool to provide an exhaustive list of the necessary concepts needed when assessing the financial implications of transitioning to a digital pathology system. The dynamic return on investment (ROI) calculator successfully integrated relevant cost and cost-saving components associated with digital pathology implementation and maintenance. Considerations include factors such as digital pathology infrastructure, clinical operations, staffing, hardware and software, information technology, archive and retrieval, medical–legal, and potential reimbursements. The ROI calculator developed for digital pathology workflows offers a comprehensive, customizable tool for institutions to assess their anticipated upfront and ongoing annual costs as they start or expand their digital pathology journey. It also offers cost-savings analysis based on specific user case volume, institutional geographic considerations, and actual costs. In addition, the calculator also serves as a tool to estimate number of required whole slide scanners, scanner throughput, and data storage (TB). This tool is intended to estimate the potential costs and cost savings resulting from the transition to digital pathology for business plan justifications and return on investment calculations. Conclusions: The digital pathology online cost calculator provides a comprehensive and reliable means of estimating the financial implications associated with implementing and maintaining a digital pathology system. By considering various cost factors and allowing customization based on institution-specific variables, the calculator empowers pathology laboratories, healthcare institutions, and administrators to make informed decisions and optimize resource allocation when adopting or expanding digital pathology technologies. The ROI calculator will enable healthcare institutions to assess the financial feasibility and potential return on investment on adopting digital pathology, facilitating informed decision-making and resource allocation.

Summary: Background: Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive malignancy and a leading cause of cancer death worldwide; its lethality is partly linked to the difficulty of early diagnosis. Modern devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) were recently developed to improve targeting and sampling of small lesions, but innovative technologies for microscopic assessment are still lacking. Ex vivo fluorescence confocal laser microscopy (FCM) is a new digital tool for real-time microscopic assessment of fresh unfixed biological specimens, avoiding conventional histological slide preparation and potentially being highly appealing for EUS-FNB specimens. Methods: This study evaluated the possible role of FCM for immediate evaluation of pancreatic specimens from EUS-FNB. It involved comparison of the interobserver agreement between the new method and standard histological analysis during international multicenter sharing of digital images. Digital images from 25 cases of EUS-FNB obtained with real-time FCM technology and 25 paired digital whole-slide images from permanent conventional paraffin sections were observed by 10 pathologists from different Institutions in Europe, Japan, and the United States, in a blinded manner. The study evaluated 500 observations regarding adequacy, morphological clues, diagnostic categories, and final diagnosis. Findings: Statistical analysis showed substantial equivalence in the interobserver agreement among pathologists using the two techniques. There was also good inter-test agreement in determining sample adequacy and when assigning a diagnostic category. Among morphological features, nuclear enlargement was the most reproducible clue, with very good inter-test agreement. Interpretation: Findings in this study are from international multicenter digital sharing and are published here for the first time. Considering the advantages of FCM digital diagnostics in terms of reduced time and unaltered sample maintenance, the ex vivo confocal laser microscopy may effectively improve traditional EUS-FNB diagnostics, with significant implications for planning modern diagnostic workflow for pancreatic tumors. Funding: This study was not supported by any funding source.

Digital workflow transformation continues to sweep throughout a diversity of pathology departments spanning the globe following catalyzation of whole slide imaging (WSI) adoption by the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. The utility of WSI for a litany of use cases including primary diagnosis has been emphasized during this period, with WSI scanning devices gaining the approval of healthcare regulatory bodies and practitioners alike for clinical applications following extensive validatory efforts. As successful validation for WSI is predicated upon pathologist diagnostic interpretability of digital images with high glass slide concordance, departmental adoption of WSI is tantamount to the reliability of such images often predicated upon quality assessment notwithstanding image interpretability but extending to quality of practice following WSI adoption. Metrics of importance within this context include failure rates inclusive of different scanning errors that result in poor image quality and the potential such errors may incur upon departmental turnaround time (TAT). We sought to evaluate the impact of WSI implementation through retrospective evaluation of scan failure frequency in archival versus newly prepared slides, types of scanning error, and impact upon TAT following commencement of live WSI operation in May 2017 until the present period within a fully digitized high-volume academic institution. A 1.19% scan failure incidence rate was recorded during this period, with re-scanning requested and successfully executed for 1.19% of cases during the reported period of January 2019 until present. No significant impact upon TAT was deduced, suggesting an outcome which may be encouraging for departments considering digital workflow adoption.

Background: The Visiopharm automated estrogen receptor (ER) digital imaging analysis (DIA) algorithm assesses digitized ER immunohistochemistry (IHC) by segmenting tumor nuclei and detecting stained nuclei automatically. We aimed to integrate and validate this algorithm in a digital pathology workflow for clinical use. Design: The study cohort consisted of a serial collection of 97 invasive breast carcinoma specimens including 73 biopsies and 24 resections. ER IHC slides were scanned into Philips Image Management System (IMS) during our routine digital workflow and digital images were directly streamed into Visiopharm platform and analyzed using automated ER algorithm to obtain the positively stained tumor nuclei and staining intensity. ER DIA scores were compared with pathologists’ manual scores. Results: The overall concordance between pathologists’ reads and DIA reads was excellent (91/97, 93.8%). Pearson Correlation Coefficient of the percentage of ER positive nuclei between the original reads and VIS reads was 0.72. Six cases (3 ER-negative and 3 ER-positive) had discordant results. All 3 false negative cases had very weak ER staining and no more than 10% positivity. The causes for false positive DIA were mainly pre-analytic/pre-imaging and included intermixed benign glands in tumor area, ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) components, and tissue folding. Conclusions: Automated ER DIA demonstrates excellent concordance with pathologists’ scores and accurately discriminates ER positive from negative cases. Furthermore, integrating automated biomarker DIA into a busy clinical digital workflow is feasible and may save time and labor for pathologists.

We believe the switch to a digital pathology (DP) workflow is imminent and it is essential to understand the economic implications of conversion. Many aspects of the adoption of DP will be disruptive and have a direct financial impact, both in short term costs, such as investment in equipment and personnel, and long term revenue potential, such as improved productivity and novel tests. The focus of this whitepaper is to educate pathologists, laboratorians and other stakeholders about the business and monetary considerations of converting to a digital pathology workflow. The components of a DP business plan will be thoroughly summarized, and guidance will be provided on how to build a case for adoption and implementation as well as a roadmap for transitioning from an analog to a digital pathology workflow in various laboratory settings. It is important to clarify that this publication is not intended to list prices although some financials will be mentioned as examples. The authors encourage readers who are evaluating conversion to a DP workflow to use this paper as a foundational guide for conducting a thorough and complete assessment while incorporating in current market pricing. Contributors to this paper analyzed peer-reviewed literature and data collected from various institutions, some of which are mentioned. Digital pathology will change the way we practice through facilitating patient access to expert pathology services and enabling image analysis tools and assays to aid in diagnosis, prognosis, risk stratification and therapeutic selection. Together, they will result in the delivery of valuable information from which to make better decisions and improve the health of patients.