RESUMO
Whole slide imaging is revolutionizing the field of pathology and is currently being used for clinical, educational, and research initiatives by an increasing number of institutions. Pathology departments have distinct needs for digital pathology systems, yet the cost of digital workflows is cited as a major barrier for widespread adoption by many organizations. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) is an early adopter of whole slide imaging with incremental investments in resources that started more than 15 years ago. This experience and the large-scale scan operations led to the identification of required framework components of digital pathology operations. The cost of these components for the 2021 digital pathology operations at MSK were studied and calculated to enable an understanding of the operation and benchmark the accompanying costs. This paper describes the unique infrastructure cost and the costs associated with the digital pathology clinical operation use cases in a large, tertiary cancer center. These calculations can serve as a blueprint for other institutions to provide the necessary concepts and offer insights towards the financial requirements for digital pathology adoption by other institutions.
RESUMO
CONTEXT.: Digital pathology (DP) implementations vary in scale, based on aims of intended operation. Few laboratories have completed a full-scale DP implementation, which may be due to high overhead costs that disrupt the traditional pathology workflow. Neither standardized criteria nor benchmark data have yet been published showing practical return on investment after implementing a DP platform. OBJECTIVE.: To provide benchmark data and practical metrics to support operational efficiency and cost savings in a large academic center. DESIGN.: Metrics reviewed include archived pathology asset retrieval; ancillary test request for recurrent/metastatic disease; cost analysis and turnaround time (TAT); and DP experience survey. RESULTS.: Glass slide requests from the department slide archive and an off-site surgery center showed a 93% and 97% decrease, respectively. Ancillary immunohistochemical orders, compared in 2014 (52%)-before whole slide images (WSIs) were available in the laboratory information system-and 2017 (21%) showed $114 000/y in anticipated savings. Comprehensive comparative cost analysis showed a 5-year $1.3 million savings. Surgical resection cases with prior WSIs showed a 1-day decrease in TAT. A DP experience survey showed 80% of respondents agreed WSIs improved their clinical sign-out experience. CONCLUSIONS.: Implementing a DP operation showed a noteworthy increase in efficiency and operational utility. Digital pathology deployments and operations may be gauged by the following metrics: number of glass slide requests as WSIs become available, decrease in confirmatory testing for patients with metastatic/recurrent disease, long-term decrease in off-site pathology asset costs, and faster TAT. Other departments may use our benchmark data and metrics to enhance patient care and demonstrate return on investment to justify adoption of DP.