ABSTRACT
The last seventy years have been characterized by rapid advancements in computer technology, and the healthcare system has not been immune to this trend. However, anatomic pathology has remained largely an analog discipline. In recent years, this has been changing with the growing adoption of digital pathology, partly driven by the potential of computer-aided diagnosis. As part of an international collaboration, we conducted a comprehensive survey to gain a deeper understanding of the status of digital pathology implementation in Europe and Asia. A total of 127 anatomic pathology laboratories participated in the survey, including 75 from Europe and 52 from Asia, with 72 laboratories having established digital pathology workflow and 55 without digital pathology. Laboratories using digital pathology were thoroughly questioned about their implementation strategies and institutional experiences, including details on equipment, storage, integration with laboratory information system, computer-aided diagnosis, and the costs of going digital. The impact of the digital pathology workflow was also evaluated, focusing on turnaround time, specimen traceability, quality control, and overall satisfaction. Laboratories without access to digital pathology were asked to provide insights into their perceptions of the technology, expectations, barriers to adoption, and potential facilitators. Our findings indicate that while digital pathology is still the future for many, it is already the present for some. This decade may be a time when anatomic pathology finally embraces the digital revolution on a large scale.
HIGHLIGHTS
Larger labs adopt digital pathology more
Full digital transition is still rare nowadays
Many initial concerns have not materialized after implementation
Most non-digital laboratories plan to go digital soon
Competing Interest Statement
J.F. is an advisor for N Lab Corp., outside the submitted work. C.E. consults for Mindpeak, 3DHISTECH and Leica. Other authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
author mail
Daniel Gomes Pinto danielgomespinto{at}gmail.com
Andrey Bychkov bychkov.andrey{at}kameda.jp
Naoko Tsuyama naoko.tsuyama{at}jfcr.or.jp
Junya Fukuoka fukuokaj{at}nagasaki-u.ac.jp
Catarina Eloy catarinaeloy{at}hotmail.com
Competing Interests statement J.F. is an advisor for N Lab Corp., outside the submitted work. C.E. consults for Mindpeak, 3DHISTECH and Leica. Other authors declare no conflict of interest.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.