Whole slide imaging equivalency and efficiency study: experience at a large academic center.

Whole slide imaging is Food and Drug Administration-approved for primary diagnosis in the United States of America; however, relatively few pathology departments in the country have fully implemented an enterprise wide digital pathology system enabled for primary diagnosis. Digital pathology has significant potential to transform pathology practice with several published studies documenting some level of diagnostic equivalence between digital and conventional systems. However, whole slide imaging also has significant potential to disrupt pathology practice, due to the differences in efficiency of manipulating digital images vis-à-vis glass slides, and studies on the efficiency of actual digital pathology workload are lacking. Our randomized, equivalency and efficiency study aimed to replicate clinical workflow, comparing conventional microscopy to a complete digital pathology signout using whole slide images, evaluating the equivalency and efficiency of glass slide to whole slide image reporting, reflective of true pathology practice workloads in the clinical setting. All glass slides representing an entire day's routine clinical signout workload for six different anatomic pathology subspecialties at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were scanned on Leica Aperio AT2 at ×40 (0.25 µm/pixel). Integration of whole slide images for each accessioned case is through an interface between the Leica eSlide manager database and the laboratory information system, Cerner CoPathPlus. Pathologists utilized a standard institution computer workstation and viewed whole slide images through an internally developed, vendor agnostic whole slide image viewer, named the "MSK Slide Viewer". Subspecialized pathologists first reported on glass slides from surgical pathology cases using routine clinical workflow. Glass slides were de-identified, scanned, and re-accessioned in the laboratory information system test environment. After a washout period of 13 weeks, pathologists reported the same clinical workload using whole slide image integrated within the laboratory information system. Intraobserver equivalency metrics included top-line diagnosis, margin status, lymphovascular and/or perineural invasion, pathology stage, and the need to order ancillary testing (i.e., recuts, immunohistochemistry). Turnaround time (efficiency) evaluation was defined by the start of each case when opened in the laboratory information system and when the case was completed for that day (i.e., case sent to signout queue or pending ancillary studies). Eight pathologists participated from the following subspecialties: bone and soft tissue, genitourinary, gastrointestinal, breast, gynecologic, and dermatopathology. Glass slides signouts comprised of 204 cases, encompassing 2091 glass slides; and digital signouts comprised of 199 cases, encompassing 2073 whole slide images. The median whole slide image file size was 1.54 GB; scan time/slide, 6 min 24 s; and scan area 32.1 × 18.52 mm. Overall diagnostic equivalency (e.g., top-line diagnosis) was 99.3% between digital and glass slide signout; however, signout using whole slide images showed a median overall 19% decrease in efficiency per case. No significant difference by reader, subspecialty, or specimen type was identified. Our experience is the most comprehensive study to date and shows high intraobserver whole slide image to glass slide equivalence in reporting of true clinical workflows and workloads. Efficiency needs to improve for digital pathology to gain more traction among pathologists.

Understanding the financial aspects of digital pathology: A dynamic customizable return on investment calculator for informed decision-making.

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.

Integrated digital pathology at scale: A solution for clinical diagnostics and cancer research at a large academic medical center.

OBJECTIVE: Broad adoption of digital pathology (DP) is still lacking, and examples for DP connecting diagnostic, research, and educational use cases are missing. We blueprint a holistic DP solution at a large academic medical center ubiquitously integrated into clinical workflows; researchapplications including molecular, genetic, and tissue databases; and educational processes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We built a vendor-agnostic, integrated viewer for reviewing, annotating, sharing, and quality assurance of digital slides in a clinical or research context. It is the first homegrown viewer cleared by New York State provisional approval in 2020 for primary diagnosis and remote sign-out during the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic. We further introduce an interconnected Honest Broker for BioInformatics Technology (HoBBIT) to systematically compile and share large-scale DP research datasets including anonymized images, redacted pathology reports, and clinical data of patients with consent. RESULTS: The solution has been operationally used over 3 years by 926 pathologists and researchers evaluating 288 903 digital slides. A total of 51% of these were reviewed within 1 month after scanning. Seamless integration of the viewer into 4 hospital systems clearly increases the adoption of DP. HoBBIT directly impacts the translation of knowledge in pathology into effective new health measures, including artificial intelligence-driven detection models for prostate cancer, basal cell carcinoma, and breast cancer metastases, developed and validated on thousands of cases. CONCLUSIONS: We highlight major challenges and lessons learned when going digital to provide orientation for other pathologists. Building interconnected solutions will not only increase adoption of DP, but also facilitate next-generation computational pathology at scale for enhanced cancer research.

Implementation of Digital Pathology Offers Clinical and Operational Increase in Efficiency and Cost Savings.

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.