PMID- 26955502
OWN - NLM
STAT- PubMed-not-MEDLINE
DCOM- 20160309
LR  - 20220729
IS  - 2229-5089 (Print)
IS  - 2153-3539 (Electronic)
VI  - 7
DP  - 2016
TI  - Diagnostic time in digital pathology: A comparative study on 400 cases.
PG  - 4
LID - 10.4103/2153-3539.175377 [doi]
LID - 4
AB  - BACKGROUND: Numerous validation studies in digital pathology confirmed its value 
      as a diagnostic tool. However, a longer time to diagnosis than traditional 
      microscopy has been seen as a significant barrier to the routine use of digital 
      pathology. As a part of our validation study, we compared a digital and 
      microscopic diagnostic time in the routine diagnostic setting. MATERIALS AND 
      METHODS: One senior staff pathologist reported 400 consecutive cases in 
      histology, nongynecological, and fine needle aspiration cytology (20 sessions, 20 
      cases/session), over 4 weeks. Complex, difficult, and rare cases were excluded 
      from the study to reduce the bias. A primary diagnosis was digital, followed by 
      traditional microscopy, 6 months later, with only request forms available for 
      both. Microscopic slides were scanned at x20, digital images accessed through the 
      fully integrated laboratory information management system (LIMS) and viewed in 
      the image viewer on double 23" displays. A median broadband speed was 299 Mbps. A 
      diagnostic time was measured from the point slides were made available to the 
      point diagnosis was made or additional investigations were deemed necessary, 
      recorded independently in minutes/session and compared. RESULTS: A digital 
      diagnostic time was 1841 and microscopic 1956 min; digital being shorter than 
      microscopic in 13 sessions. Four sessions with shorter microscopic diagnostic 
      time included more cases requiring extensive use of magnifications over x20. 
      Diagnostic time was similar in three sessions. CONCLUSIONS: A diagnostic time in 
      digital pathology can be shorter than traditional microscopy in the routine 
      diagnostic setting, with adequate and stable network speeds, fully integrated 
      LIMS and double displays as default parameters. This also related to better 
      ergonomics, larger viewing field, and absence of physical slide handling, with 
      effects on both diagnostic and nondiagnostic time. Differences with previous 
      studies included a design, image size, number of cases, specimen type, network 
      speed, and participant's level of confidence and experience in digital reporting. 
      Further advancements in working stations and gained experience in digital 
      reporting are expected to improve diagnostic time and widen routine applications 
      of digital pathology.
FAU - Vodovnik, Aleksandar
AU  - Vodovnik A
AD  - Department of Pathology, Forde Central Hospital, 6807 Forde, Norway.
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20160129
PL  - United States
TA  - J Pathol Inform
JT  - Journal of pathology informatics
JID - 101528849
PMC - PMC4763508
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - Diagnostic time
OT  - digital pathology
OT  - turnaround
EDAT- 2016/03/10 06:00
MHDA- 2016/03/10 06:01
PMCR- 2016/01/01
CRDT- 2016/03/09 06:00
PHST- 2015/09/30 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2015/11/28 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2016/03/09 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2016/03/10 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2016/03/10 06:01 [medline]
PHST- 2016/01/01 00:00 [pmc-release]
AID - S2153-3539(22)00522-3 [pii]
AID - JPI-7-4 [pii]
AID - 10.4103/2153-3539.175377 [doi]
PST - epublish
SO  - J Pathol Inform. 2016 Jan 29;7:4. doi: 10.4103/2153-3539.175377. eCollection 
      2016.