Now that digital pathology has been approved for primary diagnosis of surgical pathology specimens (see: FDA Approves the Philips Digital Pathology WSI Solution for Primary Diagnosis), pathology departments will inevitably need to develop plans to integrate this new technology into their existing LISs and automated lines (see: Seamless automation: within reach for AP?). This topic was recently addressed as a blog note by Nathan Buchbinder who is Vice President for Operations at Proscia (see: Integration and Interoperability Are Essential for the Growth of Digital Pathology). It's a longish article so I could not quote all of it. Below is a short passage from it:
There are multiple hurdles that digital pathology must overcome before the widespread adoption of this technology. One key hurdle is that consumers are of digital pathology are rightly wary of staking a lot of money and time on the often frustrating process of installing and adjusting to expensive digital pathology systems. A large portion of this frustration is due to sub-par standards and practices with regards to digital pathology hardware and software implementation and integration. There are two elements that make Implementation and integration particularly crucial to the success of digital pathology. First, digital pathology is just one (albeit crucial) part of the overall pathology and diagnostic workflow. Integration with existing laboratory hardware and software, including the Laboratory Information System (LIS), is vital to ensuring that the full benefits of digital pathology can be achieved. If that doesn’t happen, or if it doesn’t happen smoothly, consumers are justly concerned that the efforts spent on this expensive endeavor won’t pay off. Rather, they will be left with just another tool whose use consumes time and effort that pathology labs simply don’t have.
Secondly, digital pathology technology is evolving quickly. In theory, this rapid evolution provides the consumer with an improved experience, but poor implementation and integration can make it challenging for an existing setup to evolve alongside the technology. As new hardware, software, and accessory tools are developed as part of the pathology workflow, pathologists want to feel assured that their systems will never be outdated and that adopting and integrating new technologies will be straightforward. Digital pathology is not meeting consumer expectations for integration and implementation due to issues concerning interoperability. Closed hardware and software systems leave little room for independent, third party integration. What’s more interesting and troubling is that, to date, even the most open hardware and software providers have yet to successfully establish standards or ensure compatibility between their products. Consumers want a seamless experience from start to finish.
Digital pathology has been in a kind of limbo state for years, lacking FDA approval for primary diagnosis. This goal has now been achieved, at least for one vendor, and I assume that the other vendors will succeed quickly with the same goal. It's significant that an executive with a digital pathology vendor is now calling for the establishment of standards to ensure compatibility between the various digital pathology products in the market. His company is Proscia and its platform, Pathology Cloud, is describe on the company web site in the following way:
Pathology Cloud helps users get started with digital pathology in minutes. At the core of Pathology Cloud lies an as-a-service infrastructure optimized for scalability, security, and cost-efficiency. With granular access permissions, clients have full control over who can see what, when. This, along with exhaustive access logs available for auditing, make Proscia's cloud infrastructure ideal for sensitive data.
I was active in pathology informatics during the era of standards development for LISs and the associated integration of automated IVD instruments with LISs. All of the same rules apply to digital pathology. These efforts will require a collaborative relationship between pathology departments, digital pathology vendors, LIS vendors, automated AP equipment vendors, and pathology societies. The latter include the Digital Pathology Association (DPA) and the Association for Pathology Informatics (API) and perhaps larger organizations like CAP and ASCP. Among the pathology societies, the one with the largest vested interest in standards development is API with a number of digital pathology vendors as members. Here is a link to the DPA web site showing the logos of its 23 industry members. Omnyx is still listed but its current status is murky (see: Omnyx Shutters Doors in Pittsburgh).
Comments