The Technicians´ Role in Digital Pathology Implementation. Searching Optimization.

  • Eduardo Alcaraz Mateos Pathology Department, Morales Meseguer University Hospital, Murcia, Spain.
  • Inmaculada Tortosa-Martínez Pathology Department, Morales Meseguer University Hospital, Murcia, Spain.
  • Carlos Alcolea-Guardiola Pathology Department, Morales Meseguer University Hospital, Murcia, Spain.
  • Susana Estévez-Ligero Pathology Department, Morales Meseguer University Hospital, Murcia, Spain
  • Ángeles Abellán-Palazón Pathology Department, Morales Meseguer University Hospital, Murcia, Spain
  • Alexandra Kundisova Faculty of Medicine, University of Bratislava, Slovakia
  • Andrés Nieto-Olivares Pathology Department, Morales Meseguer University Hospital, Murcia, Spain
  • Asunción Chaves-Benito Pathology Department, Morales Meseguer University Hospital, Murcia, Spain
  • Enrique Poblet Pathology Department, Reina Sofía University Hospital, Murcia, Spain.

Abstract

Background

Scanning histological or cytological preparations is a crucial element in the process of digitization of Pathology Departments, along with the traceability of tissue samples and the reports management. The scanning time and the high size of the files are still considered suboptimal for full implementation. In order to optimize time and space a comparative study of the workflow performed by histotechnicians in our center has been carried out.

Material & Methods

A total of 25 endoscopic samples were selected with the intention of comparing different parameters (scanning time, error rate during scanning and hard disk storage) between the original histological glass slides (group A: 2 slides per case, 50 preparations) and new sections, with levels grouped into a single slide (group B: 1 slide per case, 25 preparations). They were scanned at 20x magnification in routine way using the Ventana iScan Coreo scanner (Roche diagnostics). The process was repeated 4 times to calculate averages.

Results

The average scanning time was 5 hours 40 minutes (6m 48s / slide) in group A and 5 hours 10 minutes (12m 24s / slide) in group B. The error rate was 6.1% in group A and 3,8% in group B. The space occupied on the hard disk was 11.87 GB in group A and 9.6 GB in group B (475 MB/case vs 385 MB/case, respectively). The average number of tissue sections per case was 7 in group A and 8 in group B.

Conclusion

There is a clear benefit of standardizing and optimizing the number of cuts per slide in terms of storage (saving 19%), biopsy sampling (14% more tissue) and error rate (37% less), including a not negligible decrease in the scanning time (9%) in the study conducted.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Patterson, E.S., Rayo, M., Gill, C., Gurcan, M.N., Barriers and facilitators to adoption of soft copy interpretation from the user perspective: Lessons learned from filmless radiology for slideless pathology. J Pathol Inform 2011. 7(2):1.

Weinstein, R.S., Graham, A.R., Richter, L.C., et al., Overview of telepathology, virtual microscopy, and whole slide imaging: prospects for the future. Hum Pathol 2009. 40:1057-69.

Mosser, H., Urban, M., Hruby, W., Filmless digital radiology feasibility and 20 month experience in clinical routine. Med Inform 1994. 19:149-59.

Hynes, D.M., Stevenson, G., Nahmias C., Towards filmless and distance radiology. Lancet. 1997. 350:657-60.

Parwani, A.V., Hassell, L., Glassy, E., et al., Regulatory barriers surrounding the use of whole slide imaging in the United States of America. J Pathol Inform 2014. 5:38.

Allen, T.C., Digital pathology and federalism. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014. 138:162-5.

Pantanowitz, L., Sinard, J.H., Henricks, W.H., et al., Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013. 137:1710-22.

Hanna, M.G., Pantanowitz, L., Evans, A.J., Overview of contemporary guidelines in digital pathology: what is available in 2015 and what still needs to be addressed? J Clin Pathol 2015. 68:499-505.

García-Rojo, M., International Clinical Guidelines for the Adoption of Digital Pathology: A Review of Technical Aspects. Pathobiology 2016. 83:99-109.

Ho, J., Ahlers, S.M., Stratman, C., et al., Can digital pathology result in cost savings? A financial projection for digital pathology implementation at a large integrated healthcare organization. J Pathol Inform 2014. 28(5):33.

Nitrosi. A., Borasi, G., Nicoli, F., et al., A filmless radiology department in a full digital regional hospital: Quantitative evaluation of the increased quality and efficiency. J Digital Imaging 2007. 20:140–8.

Saco, A., Ramírez, J., Sagasta, A., et al., Whole-Slide Imaging in the Routine in a Pathology Laboratory: Can File Storage Requirements Be Reduced By Deleting Unnecessary Images? Lab Invest 2015. 95:401A.
Published
2016-11-07
How to Cite
ALCARAZ MATEOS, Eduardo et al. The Technicians´ Role in Digital Pathology Implementation. Searching Optimization.. Diagnostic Pathology, [S.l.], v. 2, n. 1, nov. 2016. ISSN 2364-4893. Available at: <http://www.diagnosticpathology.eu/content/index.php/dpath/article/view/231>. Date accessed: 26 nov. 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.17629/www.diagnosticpathology.eu-2016-2:231.
Section
Research

Keywords

Digital Pathology; Histotechnician; Pathology Assistant; Resource Optimization.

Most read articles by the same author(s)