« "Not Yet" a Common Response by Pathologists to Digital Pathology Adoption | Main | A Potential and Useful Consulting Role for Digital Pathology Vendors »

Comments

Steve A McClain

The first argument is NOT very strong at all in practice. Caution is appropriate. Original slide review is still needed is many critical or difficult cases, because slides are far better optically, more data, and with higher resolution. Some objects can only be seen when the microscope is defined- condenser adjusted or polarizer added.
For example, small objects like fungal hyphae and bacteria may be nearly invisible in scanned images. Distinguishing
Merkel cell carcinoma from Basal cell carcinoma may be difficult. For those reasons original slide review workflow is still needed.
Second, for practical purposes most labs will need N+1 scanners (1 extra backup when a scanner is down or being serviced). Third, we have determined results can be comparable, but we have NOT YET determined where the scanning technology fails or interpretations can be prone to error.

"Given that whole slide images are highly portable, large health systems have the opportunity to modify their surgical pathology workflow. Glass slides no longer need to be transported to the relevant in-house speciality pathologist or outside consultant."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Corporate Underwriters





  •  

     
     
     
     
     

Search Lab Soft News

  • Google

    WWW
    labsoftnews.typepad.com

Subscribe to Lab Soft News (Email and RSS Feeds)

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

August 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 12/2005