Complete digital pathology transition: A large multi-center experience

Transitioning from glass slide pathology to digital pathology for primary diagnostics requires an appropriate laboratory information system, an image management system, and slide scanners; it also reinforces the need for sophisticated pathology informatics including synoptic reporting. Previous repo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Pathology, research and practice research and practice, 2024-01, Vol.253, p.155028-155028, Article 155028
Hauptverfasser: Samueli, Benzion, Aizenberg, Natalie, Shaco-Levy, Ruthy, Katzav, Aviva, Kezerle, Yarden, Krausz, Judit, Mazareb, Salam, Niv-Drori, Hagit, Peled, Hila Belhanes, Sabo, Edmond, Tobar, Ana, Asa, Sylvia L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 155028
container_issue
container_start_page 155028
container_title Pathology, research and practice
container_volume 253
creator Samueli, Benzion
Aizenberg, Natalie
Shaco-Levy, Ruthy
Katzav, Aviva
Kezerle, Yarden
Krausz, Judit
Mazareb, Salam
Niv-Drori, Hagit
Peled, Hila Belhanes
Sabo, Edmond
Tobar, Ana
Asa, Sylvia L.
description Transitioning from glass slide pathology to digital pathology for primary diagnostics requires an appropriate laboratory information system, an image management system, and slide scanners; it also reinforces the need for sophisticated pathology informatics including synoptic reporting. Previous reports have discussed the transition itself and relevant considerations for it, but not the selection criteria and considerations for the infrastructure. To describe the process used to evaluate slide scanners, image management systems, and synoptic reporting systems for a large multisite institution. Six network hospitals evaluated six slide scanners, three image management systems, and three synoptic reporting systems. Scanners were evaluated based on the quality of image, speed, ease of operation, and special capabilities (including z-stacking, fluorescence and others). Image management and synoptic reporting systems were evaluated for their ease of use and capacity. Among the scanners evaluated, the Leica GT450 produced the highest quality images, while the 3DHistech Pannoramic provided fluorescence and superior z-stacking. The newest generation of scanners, released relatively recently, performed better than slightly older scanners from major manufacturers Although the Olympus VS200 was not fully vetted due to not meeting all inclusion criteria, it is discussed herein due to its exceptional versatility. For Image Management Software, the authors believe that Sectra is, at the time of writing the best developed option, but this could change in the very near future as other systems improve their capabilities. All synoptic reporting systems performed impressively. Specifics regarding quality and abilities of different components will change rapidly with time, but large pathology practices considering such a transition should be aware of the issues discussed and evaluate the most current generation to arrive at appropriate conclusions. •Digital pathology and informatics require slide scanners and software components.•Several models are available and should be compared before purchase.•We summarize key literature in support of digital pathology and synoptic reporting.•We present a methodology for comparing different models when making this transition.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.prp.2023.155028
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2905781259</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S034403382300729X</els_id><sourcerecordid>2905781259</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-49b5293dcbf4febf35112595c85f20f1530092a140e8a28bcf53aa0f52ff70b33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kD1PwzAQQC0EoqXwA1hQRpaEsx2nCUxVxZdUiQVmy3HOxVW-sB1E_z0pLYxMJ53ePekeIZcUEgo0u9kkvesTBownVAhg-RGZ0ozmMWScHpMp8DSNgfN8Qs683wDAHFJ6SiY8pykTLJuSh2XX9DUGjCq7tkHVUa_Ce1d3620UnGq9DbZrb6NFVCu3xqgZ6mBjjW1AF-FXj85iq_GcnBhVe7w4zBl5e7h_XT7Fq5fH5-ViFWsueIjTohSs4JUuTWqwNFxQykQhdC4MA0MFByiYoilgrlheaiO4UmAEM2YOJeczcr339q77GNAH2Vivsa5Vi93gJStAzPOdc0TpHtWu896hkb2zjXJbSUHu8snNuOnlLp_c5xtvrg76oWyw-rv47TUCd3sAxyc_LTrp9U-AyjrUQVad_Uf_DSXAf9Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2905781259</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Complete digital pathology transition: A large multi-center experience</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Samueli, Benzion ; Aizenberg, Natalie ; Shaco-Levy, Ruthy ; Katzav, Aviva ; Kezerle, Yarden ; Krausz, Judit ; Mazareb, Salam ; Niv-Drori, Hagit ; Peled, Hila Belhanes ; Sabo, Edmond ; Tobar, Ana ; Asa, Sylvia L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Samueli, Benzion ; Aizenberg, Natalie ; Shaco-Levy, Ruthy ; Katzav, Aviva ; Kezerle, Yarden ; Krausz, Judit ; Mazareb, Salam ; Niv-Drori, Hagit ; Peled, Hila Belhanes ; Sabo, Edmond ; Tobar, Ana ; Asa, Sylvia L.</creatorcontrib><description>Transitioning from glass slide pathology to digital pathology for primary diagnostics requires an appropriate laboratory information system, an image management system, and slide scanners; it also reinforces the need for sophisticated pathology informatics including synoptic reporting. Previous reports have discussed the transition itself and relevant considerations for it, but not the selection criteria and considerations for the infrastructure. To describe the process used to evaluate slide scanners, image management systems, and synoptic reporting systems for a large multisite institution. Six network hospitals evaluated six slide scanners, three image management systems, and three synoptic reporting systems. Scanners were evaluated based on the quality of image, speed, ease of operation, and special capabilities (including z-stacking, fluorescence and others). Image management and synoptic reporting systems were evaluated for their ease of use and capacity. Among the scanners evaluated, the Leica GT450 produced the highest quality images, while the 3DHistech Pannoramic provided fluorescence and superior z-stacking. The newest generation of scanners, released relatively recently, performed better than slightly older scanners from major manufacturers Although the Olympus VS200 was not fully vetted due to not meeting all inclusion criteria, it is discussed herein due to its exceptional versatility. For Image Management Software, the authors believe that Sectra is, at the time of writing the best developed option, but this could change in the very near future as other systems improve their capabilities. All synoptic reporting systems performed impressively. Specifics regarding quality and abilities of different components will change rapidly with time, but large pathology practices considering such a transition should be aware of the issues discussed and evaluate the most current generation to arrive at appropriate conclusions. •Digital pathology and informatics require slide scanners and software components.•Several models are available and should be compared before purchase.•We summarize key literature in support of digital pathology and synoptic reporting.•We present a methodology for comparing different models when making this transition.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0344-0338</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1618-0631</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.prp.2023.155028</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38142526</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Germany: Elsevier GmbH</publisher><subject>Digital pathology ; Image management system ; Pathology - instrumentation ; Pathology - methods ; Slide scanners ; Software ; Synoptic reporting</subject><ispartof>Pathology, research and practice, 2024-01, Vol.253, p.155028-155028, Article 155028</ispartof><rights>2023 Elsevier GmbH</rights><rights>Copyright © 2023 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-49b5293dcbf4febf35112595c85f20f1530092a140e8a28bcf53aa0f52ff70b33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-49b5293dcbf4febf35112595c85f20f1530092a140e8a28bcf53aa0f52ff70b33</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0202-9486</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2023.155028$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38142526$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Samueli, Benzion</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aizenberg, Natalie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaco-Levy, Ruthy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Katzav, Aviva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kezerle, Yarden</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krausz, Judit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mazareb, Salam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Niv-Drori, Hagit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peled, Hila Belhanes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sabo, Edmond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tobar, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Asa, Sylvia L.</creatorcontrib><title>Complete digital pathology transition: A large multi-center experience</title><title>Pathology, research and practice</title><addtitle>Pathol Res Pract</addtitle><description>Transitioning from glass slide pathology to digital pathology for primary diagnostics requires an appropriate laboratory information system, an image management system, and slide scanners; it also reinforces the need for sophisticated pathology informatics including synoptic reporting. Previous reports have discussed the transition itself and relevant considerations for it, but not the selection criteria and considerations for the infrastructure. To describe the process used to evaluate slide scanners, image management systems, and synoptic reporting systems for a large multisite institution. Six network hospitals evaluated six slide scanners, three image management systems, and three synoptic reporting systems. Scanners were evaluated based on the quality of image, speed, ease of operation, and special capabilities (including z-stacking, fluorescence and others). Image management and synoptic reporting systems were evaluated for their ease of use and capacity. Among the scanners evaluated, the Leica GT450 produced the highest quality images, while the 3DHistech Pannoramic provided fluorescence and superior z-stacking. The newest generation of scanners, released relatively recently, performed better than slightly older scanners from major manufacturers Although the Olympus VS200 was not fully vetted due to not meeting all inclusion criteria, it is discussed herein due to its exceptional versatility. For Image Management Software, the authors believe that Sectra is, at the time of writing the best developed option, but this could change in the very near future as other systems improve their capabilities. All synoptic reporting systems performed impressively. Specifics regarding quality and abilities of different components will change rapidly with time, but large pathology practices considering such a transition should be aware of the issues discussed and evaluate the most current generation to arrive at appropriate conclusions. •Digital pathology and informatics require slide scanners and software components.•Several models are available and should be compared before purchase.•We summarize key literature in support of digital pathology and synoptic reporting.•We present a methodology for comparing different models when making this transition.</description><subject>Digital pathology</subject><subject>Image management system</subject><subject>Pathology - instrumentation</subject><subject>Pathology - methods</subject><subject>Slide scanners</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Synoptic reporting</subject><issn>0344-0338</issn><issn>1618-0631</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kD1PwzAQQC0EoqXwA1hQRpaEsx2nCUxVxZdUiQVmy3HOxVW-sB1E_z0pLYxMJ53ePekeIZcUEgo0u9kkvesTBownVAhg-RGZ0ozmMWScHpMp8DSNgfN8Qs683wDAHFJ6SiY8pykTLJuSh2XX9DUGjCq7tkHVUa_Ce1d3620UnGq9DbZrb6NFVCu3xqgZ6mBjjW1AF-FXj85iq_GcnBhVe7w4zBl5e7h_XT7Fq5fH5-ViFWsueIjTohSs4JUuTWqwNFxQykQhdC4MA0MFByiYoilgrlheaiO4UmAEM2YOJeczcr339q77GNAH2Vivsa5Vi93gJStAzPOdc0TpHtWu896hkb2zjXJbSUHu8snNuOnlLp_c5xtvrg76oWyw-rv47TUCd3sAxyc_LTrp9U-AyjrUQVad_Uf_DSXAf9Q</recordid><startdate>202401</startdate><enddate>202401</enddate><creator>Samueli, Benzion</creator><creator>Aizenberg, Natalie</creator><creator>Shaco-Levy, Ruthy</creator><creator>Katzav, Aviva</creator><creator>Kezerle, Yarden</creator><creator>Krausz, Judit</creator><creator>Mazareb, Salam</creator><creator>Niv-Drori, Hagit</creator><creator>Peled, Hila Belhanes</creator><creator>Sabo, Edmond</creator><creator>Tobar, Ana</creator><creator>Asa, Sylvia L.</creator><general>Elsevier GmbH</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0202-9486</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202401</creationdate><title>Complete digital pathology transition: A large multi-center experience</title><author>Samueli, Benzion ; Aizenberg, Natalie ; Shaco-Levy, Ruthy ; Katzav, Aviva ; Kezerle, Yarden ; Krausz, Judit ; Mazareb, Salam ; Niv-Drori, Hagit ; Peled, Hila Belhanes ; Sabo, Edmond ; Tobar, Ana ; Asa, Sylvia L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-49b5293dcbf4febf35112595c85f20f1530092a140e8a28bcf53aa0f52ff70b33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Digital pathology</topic><topic>Image management system</topic><topic>Pathology - instrumentation</topic><topic>Pathology - methods</topic><topic>Slide scanners</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Synoptic reporting</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Samueli, Benzion</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aizenberg, Natalie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaco-Levy, Ruthy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Katzav, Aviva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kezerle, Yarden</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krausz, Judit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mazareb, Salam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Niv-Drori, Hagit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peled, Hila Belhanes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sabo, Edmond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tobar, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Asa, Sylvia L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Pathology, research and practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Samueli, Benzion</au><au>Aizenberg, Natalie</au><au>Shaco-Levy, Ruthy</au><au>Katzav, Aviva</au><au>Kezerle, Yarden</au><au>Krausz, Judit</au><au>Mazareb, Salam</au><au>Niv-Drori, Hagit</au><au>Peled, Hila Belhanes</au><au>Sabo, Edmond</au><au>Tobar, Ana</au><au>Asa, Sylvia L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Complete digital pathology transition: A large multi-center experience</atitle><jtitle>Pathology, research and practice</jtitle><addtitle>Pathol Res Pract</addtitle><date>2024-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>253</volume><spage>155028</spage><epage>155028</epage><pages>155028-155028</pages><artnum>155028</artnum><issn>0344-0338</issn><eissn>1618-0631</eissn><abstract>Transitioning from glass slide pathology to digital pathology for primary diagnostics requires an appropriate laboratory information system, an image management system, and slide scanners; it also reinforces the need for sophisticated pathology informatics including synoptic reporting. Previous reports have discussed the transition itself and relevant considerations for it, but not the selection criteria and considerations for the infrastructure. To describe the process used to evaluate slide scanners, image management systems, and synoptic reporting systems for a large multisite institution. Six network hospitals evaluated six slide scanners, three image management systems, and three synoptic reporting systems. Scanners were evaluated based on the quality of image, speed, ease of operation, and special capabilities (including z-stacking, fluorescence and others). Image management and synoptic reporting systems were evaluated for their ease of use and capacity. Among the scanners evaluated, the Leica GT450 produced the highest quality images, while the 3DHistech Pannoramic provided fluorescence and superior z-stacking. The newest generation of scanners, released relatively recently, performed better than slightly older scanners from major manufacturers Although the Olympus VS200 was not fully vetted due to not meeting all inclusion criteria, it is discussed herein due to its exceptional versatility. For Image Management Software, the authors believe that Sectra is, at the time of writing the best developed option, but this could change in the very near future as other systems improve their capabilities. All synoptic reporting systems performed impressively. Specifics regarding quality and abilities of different components will change rapidly with time, but large pathology practices considering such a transition should be aware of the issues discussed and evaluate the most current generation to arrive at appropriate conclusions. •Digital pathology and informatics require slide scanners and software components.•Several models are available and should be compared before purchase.•We summarize key literature in support of digital pathology and synoptic reporting.•We present a methodology for comparing different models when making this transition.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pub>Elsevier GmbH</pub><pmid>38142526</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.prp.2023.155028</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0202-9486</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0344-0338
ispartof Pathology, research and practice, 2024-01, Vol.253, p.155028-155028, Article 155028
issn 0344-0338
1618-0631
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2905781259
source MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Digital pathology
Image management system
Pathology - instrumentation
Pathology - methods
Slide scanners
Software
Synoptic reporting
title Complete digital pathology transition: A large multi-center experience
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T05%3A49%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Complete%20digital%20pathology%20transition:%20A%20large%20multi-center%20experience&rft.jtitle=Pathology,%20research%20and%20practice&rft.au=Samueli,%20Benzion&rft.date=2024-01&rft.volume=253&rft.spage=155028&rft.epage=155028&rft.pages=155028-155028&rft.artnum=155028&rft.issn=0344-0338&rft.eissn=1618-0631&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.prp.2023.155028&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2905781259%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2905781259&rft_id=info:pmid/38142526&rft_els_id=S034403382300729X&rfr_iscdi=true