The future of computational pathology: expectations regarding the anticipated role of artificial intelligence in pathology by 2030

Expert Panel Recruitment

Candidates for the expert panel were selected by the research team using the following eligibility criteria: 1) professionals working within the specialty of pathology (anatomic and/or laboratory medicine) with an MD (or equivalent medical degree, such as an MBBS) and/or PhD, and 2) authorship of at least one peer-reviewed publication in the area of CPath/AI within the four years preceding the study (2016–2020) indexed in PubMed.

Invitations to participate in the study were sent in December 2020 to 39 candidates meeting the selection criteria. A total of 24 experts (60%) accepted and completed all three rounds of the survey. Detailed characteristics of the panelists are summarized in table 1. The majority of experts were practicing in North America (54%), with the remainder practicing in Europe, Japan, and New Zealand. The panelists were distributed across 10 different pathology subspecialties, with a third of panelists explicitly specializing in informatics, computational pathology, and/or digital pathology. Finally, the range of years in professional practice was mostly spread evenly across the panelists, with the majority having been in practice for 11–20 years (33%).

Delphi Study Development

To obtain a reliable consensus of opinions, the Delphi study was conducted over three rounds via a series of detailed questionnaires combined with controlled opinion feedback.⁵⁴ The flowchart for the study is summarized in figure 1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Flowchart illustrating the process of the present Delphi study

In Round 1, a preliminary review of the pathology AI literature, along with the research team’s empirical experience, was used to generate an open-ended questionnaire containing a set of 12 questions geared toward eliciting the ideas and opinions of the expert panelists regarding the following three topics: 1) forecasting the future of AI in pathology, 2) specific AI applications in pathology, and 3) ethical and regulatory aspects (table 2). The panelists’ responses to these open-ended questions were combined and distilled (all original answers were analyzed, and similar answers within the same category were grouped and summarized into a single statement, with the original wording used by the panelists reproduced wherever possible) into a series of questionnaire statements used in the subsequent survey rounds.

In Round 2, the panelists were asked to rate each of the questionnaire statements on a 7-point Likert scale (from 1 to 7), with different scores designed to fit different categories of questions. For example, a score of 1 might indicate “Very strongly disagree”, “Impossible” (with regard to likelihood of an event occurring), “Disappear”(with regard to job number or availability), or “Not involved at all” (with regard to degree of involvement in specific tasks), whereas a score of 7 might indicate “Very strongly agree”, Certain”, “Dramatically increase”, or “Daily involvement”, depending on the question, with higher scores generally representing a more favorable opinion toward the future role or impact of AI on Pathology (table 3).

In Round 3, the panelists were asked to re-rate all statements which did not reach consensus during Round 2. Consensus on statements was defined, a priori, as having an interquartile range (IQR) of less than 1 (IQR ≤ 1) for ratings along the 7-point Likert scale.^55,56 During Round 3, the panelists were shown their Round 2 ratings on each statement, along with the median and IQR for the group as a whole, and finally given the option to change their previous ratings, if desired.

All questionnaires were completed via an online Google Form (Google Inc, Mountain View, CA, USA), with individualized links to the form e-mailed to each panelist. The survey participants remained anonymous to one another during all three Rounds, with each participant able to view only their own responses to each statement during Rounds 1 and 2, along with the anonymized group medians and IQRs during Round 3.

Statistical Analysis

To examine whether any significant differences in panelist scores were present based on gender, practice location, pathology subspecialty, or years in practice, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests (two-tailed, alpha = 0.05 significance criterion) were performed. All analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and STATA v16 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA).

Survey Rounds

The unstructured first Delphi round allowed the panelists relative freedom in expressing their individual thoughts on topics they felt were important or relevant to the future of AI in pathology over the next decade. This resulted in the generation of 180 summative statements spanning the following nine categories: 1) impact of AI on key performance indicators (KPIs), 2) impact of AI on the pathology workforce, 3) impact of AI on pathologist tasks, 4) impact of AI on pathology technician tasks, 5) specific applications of AI in pathology, 6) role of pathology AI in integrated diagnostics, 7) pathology tasks likely to be fully automated by AI, 8) regulatory and legal aspects of AI integration, and 9) ethical aspects of AI integration.

One of the motivations behind using the Delphi method was its ability to achieve greater consensus (a reduction in variance across rounds, as measured by the IQR) among a limited number of expert panelists. After Round 2, responses to 48 of the 180 (26.7%) statements reached consensus (IQR ≤ 1). After Round 3, the panelists had reached consensus on 141 of the 180 (78.3%) statements. The mean and median Likert scores across the panelists for each of the 180 statements ranged from 3.04 to 6.83 (mean), and from 3 to 7 (median), respectively. Tables 4 through 10 present the 100 statements (spread across seven general categories) that achieved high directional consensus (defined as IQR ≤ 1, and both mean and median scores of either ≤ 3 or ≥ 5) among the expert panelists. For these 100 statements, two-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum tests demonstrated no significant differences in Likert scores between the various panelist comparison groups (female vs. male, North American vs. non-North American, subspecialty informatics or computational/digital pathology vs. other subspecialty, and < 10 years vs. ≥ 11 years in practice) on 85 of the 100 statements. The remaining 15 statements are further discussed in the corresponding sections below, which summarize the most significant results of the survey according to topic/category

Impact of AI on Pathology Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

In general, there was agreement that AI would help improve laboratory KPIs, such as turnaround time, diagnostic accuracy, the detection rate for rare events (for example, small foci of primary or metastatic tumor), and quality of diagnostic reports (table 4). However, it was also anticipated that histopathologic analyses would become more quantitative, and that diagnostic reports would become more complex. There was also agreement that AI would lead to greater standardization of diagnostic and pre-analytical processes, such as tissue sectioning, staining techniques, and workflows. As a result of these anticipated improvements in KPIs, it was expected that there would be an increase in the satisfaction of referring physicians. A statement regarding the likelihood of the cost per case decreasing with the use of AI failed to reach consensus, although a majority of the experts predicted the cost per case would not decrease with medium term AI use (within the next 8-10 years). In addition, the panelists did not reach consensus on whether the number of second-opinion consultations would decrease as a result of AI adoption.

Table 4 presents those statements regarding the impact of AI on pathology KPIs for which there was high directional consensus among the panelists. Overall, these results projected, by the year 2030, growth in computational pathology as a subspecialty with AI applications assisting pathologists in making diagnoses that are more accurate, standardized, objective, quantitative, and complete.

Impact of AI on the Pathology Workforce and Specific Tasks

There was agreement that the number of jobs for pathologists, as well as administrative staff, would likely remain the same. However, a modest increase in the number of jobs for technicians and information technology (IT) professionals was expected. While the size of the overall pathology job market was not expected to vary greatly due to the adoption of AI, the types and frequencies of tasks performed by pathologists and pathology laboratory technicians were expected to change significantly. There was agreement that AI would facilitate subspecialization in pathology, with the number of pathologists specializing in computational pathology greatly increasing. Tables 5 and 6 present the expected impact of AI on the pathologist (table 5) and pathology laboratory technician (table 6) workforces and associated tasks.

There was agreement that, by 2030, pathologists would be routinely involved in new tasks related to the incorporation of AI into their workflows, such as interpreting diagnostic outputs from AI algorithms, evaluating AI software, and performing validation and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) for AI solutions and AI-rendered diagnoses. There was also agreement pathologists would be directly participating in the design and development of AI solutions and, based on the availability of new data generated by AI, they would also be contributing to the definition of new categories of patients. As a result of AI adoption, pathologists were also expected to be more involved in ancillary activities, such as research and participation in multidisciplinary conferences and tumor boards. The panelists also agreed pathologists would sometimes be more involved in meeting directly with patients, including more frequent inclusion in patient treatment decision-making.

Compared to the panelists who had been in practice for 11 years or longer, those in practice for 10 or fewer years (7 panelists) more strongly agreed that digital pathologic diagnosis without the use of physical glass slides would be routine by 2030 (p = 0.041), with a median score of 7 (compared with a median score of 6, for those with 11 or more years of practice) and mean score of 6.43 (compared to a mean score of 5.23, for those with 11 or more years of practice). The same group also more strongly agreed that interpretation of computationally derived measurements and evaluations would be routine (p = 0.048), with a median score of 7 (compared with a median score of 6, for those with 11 or more years of practice) and mean score of 6.71 (compared to a mean score of 5.82, for those with 11 or more years of practice).

The work of pathology technicians was also expected to undergo major changes as a result of AI adoption (table 6). Technicians would be routinely involved in tasks related to new digital and computational workflows, such as scanner operation, device calibration, and QA/QC of digitized images. There was no consensus, however, as to whether technicians would be directly participating in AI-assisted diagnosis, although a slight majority of the panelists surveyed thought this would be the case.

The panelists subspecializing in informatics or computational/digital pathology (8 panelists) more strongly felt that pathology laboratory technicians would routinely be providing digital pathology support for pathologists and other users (for example, by performing device calibration and other tasks) (p = 0.005), with a median score of 7 and a mean score of 6.63 (as compared to a median of 6 and a mean of 5.50 for those not subspecializing in informatics or computational/digital pathology). Similarly, this group also felt more strongly that pathology laboratory technicians would be routinely involved in assessing and improving the consistency of histologic tissue preparation and staining to make images more suitable for AI (p = 0.049), with a mean score of 6.25 (as compared to a mean of 5.63, with the same median of 6, for those not subspecializing in informatics or computational/digital pathology).

Applications of AI to Pathology and Integrated Diagnostics

AI was expected to positively impact many aspects of the pathology workflow. The panelists proposed several specific applications they thought would likely be in routine use in pathology laboratories by the year 2030 (table 7). Regarding the analysis and interpretation of histologic images, routine applications included algorithms for the identification of hotspot areas (for example, during mitotic counts), detection of microorganisms (such as acid-fast bacilli and Helicobacter pylori) and cancer, and assistance with tumor grading. The panelists were also certain AI would be in routine use for the automated quantification of immunohistochemical (IHC) and immunofluorescent (IF) biomarker stains, such as Ki-67, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1), as well as the counting of mitotic figures and lymphocytes on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained tissue, and the identification of lymph node metastases and, in particular, micrometastases.

Tasks which are currently performed manually, but which were expected to be replaced by AI automation by the year 2030, included the provision of size measurements (e.g., tumors) and the detection of perineural and lymphovascular invasion in malignancies. In addition, it was expected that AI-based computational/virtual staining would replace the need for multiplex histochemistry and IHC/IF.

Within a decade, AI was expected to increase diagnostic efficiency by prioritizing regions of interest suspicious for cancer involvement for pathologists to review first, pre-populating relevant diagnostic report fields using data extracted from the medical record and/or gross description, and pre-populating diagnostic reports based on AI interpretation of whole-slide images. In addition, AI was expected to assist pathologists with making more accurate diagnoses by importing contextually relevant clinical history and other data related to a case for quick review by the pathologist during case sign-out, providing a set of differential diagnoses, and prompting second reads on cases where there was a discrepancy between the pathologist diagnosis and the diagnosis rendered by the AI algorithm.

The panel also foresaw a significant impact of AI on other aspects of the laboratory workflow. Routine AI-assisted prioritization of cases for pathologist review, suggestions for ancillary stains to be performed, and automated ordering of additional stains were thought to be very likely by 2030 (table 7). In terms of differences in opinion between the various panelist subgroups, those subspecializing in informatics or computational/digital pathology less strongly believed that AI would routinely be used for the quantification of eosinophils in eosinophilic esophagitis (p = 0.049), with a mean score of 5.75, as compared to a mean of 6.31 (with the same median of 6), for the other subspecialists.

AI was expected to foster the integration of pathology with other diagnostic modalities, such as radiology and genomics, by: 1) identifying histologic regions of interest to be sampled for genomic testing; 2) correlating morphologic and genomic information to help interpret genetic aberration; 3) comparing tumor extent on histology slides and radiologic images; and 4) interpreting tumor treatment response in radiologic images, based on pathology data. Multimodal-AI was also expected to enable the combination of diverse types of diagnostic data (gross/macroscopic, microscopic, radiologic, and genomic) in a single interface, and to facilitate the use of integrated diagnostic reports for certain diseases, such as prostate cancer (table 8). Consequently, it was felt AI-powered integrated diagnostics would likely lead to significant advances in the personalization of healthcare by creating new categories of patients based on differential risk stratification (prognostic) roadmaps and prediction of clinical outcomes.

The panelists with greater practice experience (≥ 11 years) more strongly believed the integration of pathology and radiology data would routinely be used to select patients for active surveillance versus radiotherapy/surgery in prostate cancer (p = 0.044; equal medians of 5 but mean of 5.29 versus 4.29 for those with ≥11 years and ≤ 10 years of practice experience, respectively). The panelists with more practice experience more strongly believed that AI would routinely be used to build risk stratification (prognostic) roadmaps for patients based on histologic, radiologic, and genomic input data (p = 0.020; equal medians of 5, means of 5.41 versus 4.43 for those with ≥ 11 years and ≤ 10 years of practice experience, respectively).

The panelists felt it was likely that, by 2030, AI would not simply assist with, but would fully replace, pathologists on several manually-performed tasks. Among these were stain selection; measurement tasks; prioritization and triage of cases; screening for microorganisms; colorectal polyp, cervical cytology, and lymph node screening; and grading of breast and colorectal cancers (table 9). Assigning work to pathologists, trainees, and technicians, as well as triaging cases to the appropriate pathologist, were also deemed likely to be fully automated by AI.

The panelists practicing outside of North America (11 panelists) thought it more likely that colorectal polyp screening would be fully delegated to AI by the year 2030 (p = 0.047; mean = 6 and median = 6 for non-North American panelists, versus mean = 5.23 and median = 5 for North American panelists). Those with more practice experience (≥ 11 years) thought it more likely that mitotic counts on H&E-stained images would be fully delegated to AI (p = 0.036; equal medians of 6 but mean of 6.29 versus 5.57 for those with ≥ 11 years and ≤ 10 years of practice experience, respectively).

Regulatory and Ethical Aspects of AI Integration in Pathology

The panelists foresaw significant regulatory and ethical challenges posed by the integration of AI in pathology (table 10). While some panelists initially suggested such issues might not pose a challenge to the application of AI in pathology, since the pathologist (or another physician) always takes the ultimate responsibility for the diagnostic, therapeutic or prognostic use of AI, the final consensus opinion overruled that initial suggestion. In principle, the panel agreed that both primary diagnostic and secondary (e.g., advisory/assistive) algorithms would have to meet strict regulatory requirements.

There was agreement that regulatory bodies would create new guidelines addressing the integration of AI into pathology, which would provide specific validation procedures and simplify regulatory pathways for AI tools, although regulatory clearance of AI software would still be a lengthy and costly process.

There was also agreement that the regulatory approval of adaptive algorithms, which continuously evolve in response to new input data, would be possible, but that algorithm drift would pose important challenges that would need to be tackled by close post-market surveillance. It was also anticipated that legal disputes would arise regarding who should assume liability for diagnostic errors induced by AI, with pathologists still being held legally responsible for AI-assisted diagnosis.

With regard to differences in opinion between the various panelist subgroups, the North American panelists more strongly believed that CLIA regulations and clarification surrounding the use of laboratory data within pathology, as well as laboratory processes, would need to be reviewed and updated (p = 0.031; median = 6 vs. median = 5 and mean = 6 vs. mean = 5.18 for North American vs. other panelists, respectively). Those subspecialized in informatics or computational/digital pathology less strongly believed that legal disputes would often arise regarding who should assume liability for diagnostic errors induced by AI (p = 0.018; mean = 4.88 and median = 5), compared to those not subspecialized in those areas (mean = 6.06 and median = 6).

Overall, the panel acknowledged there would be major ethical issues arising from the full delegation of tasks to AI algorithms, believing it likely that hurried pathologists would often accept AI interpretations without sufficient verification. On the other hand, there was disagreement between the panelists regarding whether the black box nature of AI algorithms would cause pathologists to often make diagnoses without enough clinical explainability. The panelists who had been in practice fewer years (≤ 10 years) more strongly believed that ethical issues would result from data inferences which might compromise patient anonymity (p = 0.004; mean = 6 and median = 6), compared to those in practice ≥ 11 years (mean = 4.82 and median = 5).

Finally, there was general consensus that ethical issues were expected to arise due to: 1) risk for diagnostic error resulting from the use of potentially biased algorithms trained on datasets lacking sufficient demographic diversity; and 2) the lack of proper informed consent when using patient data (which the panel agreed would become a common practice). Nevertheless, the panelists expected official regulatory bodies would do their part to overcome the aforementioned ethical and legal challenges, and funding bodies would actively promote innovation in AI and medicine, thereby fostering the advancement of AI in pathology. It was also anticipated AI would be integrated into both medical school and continuing medical education curricula for pathologists in current practice, in order to help them adapt to this rapidly evolving area and its associated legal and ethical implications.