Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Oct;30(5):555-560.
doi: 10.1007/s10278-017-9946-9.

Enterprise Implementation of Digital Pathology: Feasibility, Challenges, and Opportunities

D J Hartman  1 , L Pantanowitz  2 , J S McHugh  3 , A L Piccoli  3 , M J OLeary  3 , G R Lauro  3
Affiliations

Enterprise Implementation of Digital Pathology: Feasibility, Challenges, and Opportunities

D J Hartman et al. J Digit Imaging. 2017 Oct.

Abstract

Digital pathology is becoming technically possible to implement for routine pathology work. At our institution, we have been using digital pathology for second opinion intraoperative consultations for over 10 years. Herein, we describe our experience in converting to a digital pathology platform for primary pathology diagnosis. We implemented an incremental rollout for digital pathology on subspecialty benches, beginning with cases that contained small amounts of tissue (biopsy specimens). We successfully scanned over 40,000 slides through our digital pathology system. Several lessons (both challenges and opportunities) were learned through this implementation. A successful conversion to digital pathology requires pre-imaging adjustments, integrated software and post-imaging evaluations.

Keywords: Diagnostic imaging; Digital imaging; Digital pathology; Experiential; Imaging informatics; Implementation; Whole slide imaging.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Sample feedback form for WSI to be filled out by a pathologist before review of glass slides
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Sign out of the first digital case in August 2015 by Dr. Hartman
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Examples of slide label variabilities for both initial labels and additional labels for consultation cases
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The right panel demonstrates a gripper with sticky material. The left panel demonstrates mass spectroscopy results of material from the gripper and adhesive from the slide labels
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
A diagram comparing the traditional workflow for slides from the histology laboratory with the workflow for digital slides
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Montalto MC. An industry perspective: An update on the adoption of whole slide imaging. Journal of pathology informatics. 2016;7:18. doi: 10.4103/2153-3539.180014. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Thorstenson S, Molin J, Lundstrom C. Implementation of large-scale routine diagnostics using whole slide imaging in Sweden: Digital pathology experiences 2006-2013. Journal of pathology informatics. 2014;5(1):14. doi: 10.4103/2153-3539.129452. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Goacher E, Randell R, Williams B, Treanor D 2016. The Diagnostic Concordance of Whole Slide Imaging and Light Microscopy: A Systematic Review. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. - PubMed
    1. Snead DR, Tsang YW, Meskiri A, Kimani PK, Crossman R, Rajpoot NM, et al. Validation of digital pathology imaging for primary histopathological diagnosis. Histopathology. 2016;68(7):1063–72. doi: 10.1111/his.12879. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Van Diest PJ. Digital pathology: current status and future perspectives. Histopathology. 2012;61(1):1–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03814.x. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources