Search

Background: Despite the promising applications of whole-slide imaging (WSI) for frozen section (FS) diagnosis, its adoption for remote reporting is limited. Objective: To assess the feasibility and performance of home-based remote digital consultation for FS diagnosis. Material & Method: Cases accessioned beyond regular working hours (5 pm-10 pm) were reported simultaneously using optical microscopy (OM) and WSI. Validation of WSI for FS diagnosis from a remote site, i.e. home, was performed by 5 pathologists. Cases were scanned using a portable scanner (Grundium Ocus®40) and previewed on consumer-grade computer devices through a web-based browser (http://grundium.net). Clinical data and diagnostic reports were shared through a google spreadsheet. The diagnostic concordance, inter- and intra-observer agreement for FS diagnosis by WSI versus OM, and turnaround time (TAT), were recorded. Results: The overall diagnostic accuracy for OM and WSI (from home) was 98.2% (range 97%-100%) and 97.6% (range 95%-99%), respectively, when compared with the reference standard. Almost perfect inter-observer (k = 0.993) and intra-observer (k = 0.987) agreement for WSI was observed by 4 pathologists. Pathologists used consumer-grade laptops/desktops with an average screen size of 14.58 inches (range = 12.3-17.7 inches) and a network speed of 64 megabits per second (range: 10-90 Mbps). The mean diagnostic assessment time per case for OM and WSI was 1:48 min and 5:54 min, respectively. Mean TAT of 27.27 min per case was observed using WSI from home. Seamless connectivity was observed in approximately 75% of cases. Conclusion: This study validates the role of WSI for remote FS diagnosis for its safe and efficient adoption in clinical use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the promising applications of whole-slide imaging (WSI) for frozen section (FS) diagnosis, its adoption for remote reporting is limited. Objective: To assess the feasibility and performance of home-based remote digital consultation for FS diagnosis. Material & Method: Cases accessioned beyond regular working hours (5 pm–10 pm) were reported simultaneously using optical microscopy (OM) and WSI. Validation of WSI for FS diagnosis from a remote site, i.e. home, was performed by 5 pathologists. Cases were scanned using a portable scanner (Grundium Ocus®40) and previewed on consumer-grade computer devices through a web-based browser (http://grundium.net). Clinical data and diagnostic reports were shared through a google spreadsheet. The diagnostic concordance, inter- and intra-observer agreement for FS diagnosis by WSI versus OM, and turnaround time (TAT), were recorded. Results: The overall diagnostic accuracy for OM and WSI (from home) was 98.2% (range 97%–100%) and 97.6% (range 95%–99%), respectively, when compared with the reference standard. Almost perfect inter-observer (k = 0.993) and intra-observer (k = 0.987) agreement for WSI was observed by 4 pathologists. Pathologists used consumer-grade laptops/desktops with an average screen size of 14.58 inches (range = 12.3–17.7 inches) and a network speed of 64 megabits per second (range: 10–90 Mbps). The mean diagnostic assessment time per case for OM and WSI was 1:48 min and 5:54 min, respectively. Mean TAT of 27.27 min per case was observed using WSI from home. Seamless connectivity was observed in approximately 75% of cases. Conclusion: This study validates the role of WSI for remote FS diagnosis for its safe and efficient adoption in clinical use.

The role of digital pathology in remote reporting has seen an increase during the COVID-19 pandemic. Recently, recommendations had been made regarding the urgent need of reorganizing head and neck cancer diagnostic services to provide a safe work environment for the staff. A total of 162 glass slides from 109 patients over a period of 5 weeks were included in this validation and were assessed by all pathologists in both analyses (digital and conventional) to allow intraobserver comparison. The intraobserver agreement between the digital method (DM) and conventional method (CM) was considered almost perfect (κ ranged from 0.85 to 0.98, with 95% CI, ranging from 0.81 to 1). The most significant and frequent disagreements within trainees encompassed epithelial dysplasia grading and differentiation among severe dysplasia (carcinoma in situ) and oral squamous cell carcinoma. The most frequent pitfall from DM was lag in screen mirroring. The lack of details of inflammatory cells and the need for a higher magnification to assess dysplasia were pointed in one case each. The COVID-19 crisis has accelerated and consolidated the use of online meeting tools, which would be a valuable resource even in the post-pandemic scenario. Adaptation in laboratory workflow, the advent of digital pathology and remote reporting can mitigate the impact of similar future disruptions to the oral and maxillofacial pathology laboratory workflow avoiding delays in diagnosis and report, to facilitate timely management of head and neck cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Remote reporting in anatomic pathology is an important advantage of digital pathology that has not been much explored. The COVID-19 pandemic has provided an opportunity to explore this important application of digital pathology system in a tertiary care cancer center to ensure patient care and staff safety. Regulatory guidelines have been described for remote reporting following the pandemic. Herein, we describe our experience of validation of digital pathology workflow for remote reporting to encourage pathologists to utilize this facility which opens door for multiple, multidisciplinary collaborations. Objective: To demonstrate the validation and the operational feasibility of remote reporting using a digital pathology system. Materials and Methods: Our retrospective validation included whole-slide images (WSIs) of 60 cases of histopathology and 20 cases each of frozen sections and a digital image-based breast algorithm after a washout period of 3 months. Three pathologists with different models of consumer-grade laptops reviewed the cases remotely to assess the diagnostic concordance and operational feasibility of the modified workflow. The slides were digitized on a USFDA-approved Philips UFS 300 scanner at ×40 resolution (0.25 µm/pixel) and viewed on the Image Management System through a web browser. All the essential parameters were reported for each case. After successful validation, 886 cases were reported remotely from March 29, 2020, to June 30, 2020, prospectively. Light microscopy formed the gold standard reference in remote reporting. Results: 100% major diagnostic concordance was observed in the validation of remote reporting in the retrospective and prospective studies using consumer-grade laptops. The deferral rate was 0.34%. 97.6% of histopathology and 100% of frozen sections were signed out within the turnaround time. Network speed and a lack of virtual private network did not significantly affect the study. Conclusion: This study of validation and reporting of complete pathology cases remotely, including their operational feasibility during a public health emergency, proves that remote sign-out using a digital pathology system is not inferior to WSIs on medical-grade monitors and light microscopy. Such studies on remote reporting open the door for the use of digital pathology for interinstitutional consultation and collaboration: Its main intended use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the widespread adoption of digital pathology (DP) for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology. This paradigm shift is likely to influence how we function routinely in the postpandemic era. We present learnings from early adoption of DP for a live digital sign-out from home in a risk-mitigated environment. Materials and Methods: We aimed to validate DP for remote reporting from home in a real-time environment and evaluate the parameters influencing the efficiency of a digital workflow. Eighteen pathologists prospectively validated DP for remote use on 567 biopsy cases including 616 individual parts from 7 subspecialties over a duration from March 21, 2020, to June 30, 2020. The slides were digitized using Roche Ventana DP200 whole-slide scanner and reported from respective homes in a risk-mitigated environment. Results: Following re-review of glass slides, there was no major discordance and 1.2% (n = 7/567) minor discordance. The deferral rate was 4.5%. All pathologists reported from their respective homes from laptops with an average network speed of 20 megabits per second. Conclusion: We successfully validated and adopted a digital workflow for remote reporting with available resources and were able to provide our patients, an undisrupted access to subspecialty expertise during these unprecedented times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pathology departments must rise to new staffing challenges caused by the coronavirus disease-19 pandemic and may need to work more flexibly for the foreseeable future. In light of this, many pathologists and departments are considering the merits of remote or home reporting of digital cases. While some individuals have experience of this, little work has been done to determine optimum conditions for home reporting, including technical and training considerations. In this publication produced in response to the pandemic, we provide information regarding risk assessment of home reporting of digital slides, summarize available information on specifications for home reporting computing equipment, and share access to a novel point-of-use quality assurance tool for assessing the suitability of home reporting screens for digital slide diagnosis. We hope this study provides a useful starting point and some practical guidance in a difficult time. This study forms the basis of the guidance issued by the Royal College of Pathologists, available at: https://www.rcpath.org/uploads/assets/626ead77-d7dd-42e1-949988e43dc84c97/RCPath-guidance-for-remote-digital-pathology. pdf. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the widespread adoption of digital pathology (DP) for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology. This paradigm shift is likely to influence how we function routinely in the postpandemic era. We present learnings from early adoption of DP for a live digital sign-out from home in a risk-mitigated environment. Materials and Methods: We aimed to validate DP for remote reporting from home in a real-time environment and evaluate the parameters influencing the efficiency of a digital workflow. Eighteen pathologists prospectively validated DP for remote use on 567 biopsy cases including 616 individual parts from 7 subspecialties over a duration from March 21, 2020, to June 30, 2020. The slides were digitized using Roche Ventana DP200 whole-slide scanner and reported from respective homes in a risk-mitigated environment. Results: Following re-review of glass slides, there was no major discordance and 1.2% (n = 7/567) minor discordance. The deferral rate was 4.5%. All pathologists reported from their respective homes from laptops with an average network speed of 20 megabits per second. Conclusion: We successfully validated and adopted a digital workflow for remote reporting with available resources and were able to provide our patients, an undisrupted access to subspecialty expertise during these unprecedented times.

Background: Remote reporting in anatomic pathology is an important advantage of digital pathology that has not been much explored. The COVID-19 pandemic has provided an opportunity to explore this important application of digital pathology system in a tertiary care cancer center to ensure patient care and staff safety. Regulatory guidelines have been described for remote reporting following the pandemic. Herein, we describe our experience of validation of digital pathology workflow for remote reporting to encourage pathologists to utilize this facility which opens door for multiple, multidisciplinary collaborations. Objective: To demonstrate the validation and the operational feasibility of remote reporting using a digital pathology system. Materials and Methods: Our retrospective validation included whole-slide images (WSIs) of 60 cases of histopathology and 20 cases each of frozen sections and a digital image-based breast algorithm after a washout period of 3 months. Three pathologists with different models of consumer-grade laptops reviewed the cases remotely to assess the diagnostic concordance and operational feasibility of the modified workflow. The slides were digitized on a USFDA-approved Philips UFS 300 scanner at ×40 resolution (0.25 μm/pixel) and viewed on the Image Management System through a web browser. All the essential parameters were reported for each case. After successful validation, 886 cases were reported remotely from March 29, 2020, to June 30, 2020, prospectively. Light microscopy formed the gold standard reference in remote reporting. Results: 100% major diagnostic concordance was observed in the validation of remote reporting in the retrospective and prospective studies using consumer-grade laptops. The deferral rate was 0.34%. 97.6% of histopathology and 100% of frozen sections were signed out within the turnaround time. Network speed and a lack of virtual private network did not significantly affect the study. Conclusion: This study of validation and reporting of complete pathology cases remotely, including their operational feasibility during a public health emergency, proves that remote sign-out using a digital pathology system is not inferior to WSIs on medical-grade monitors and light microscopy. Such studies on remote reporting open the door for the use of digital pathology for interinstitutional consultation and collaboration: Its main intended use.

Pathology departments must rise to new staffing challenges caused by the coronavirus disease-19 pandemic and may need to work more flexibly for the foreseeable future. In light of this, many pathologists and departments are considering the merits of remote or home reporting of digital cases. While some individuals have experience of this, little work has been done to determine optimum conditions for home reporting, including technical and training considerations. In this publication produced in response to the pandemic, we provide information regarding risk assessment of home reporting of digital slides, summarize available information on specifications for home reporting computing equipment, and share access to a novel point-of-use quality assurance tool for assessing the suitability of home reporting screens for digital slide diagnosis. We hope this study provides a useful starting point and some practical guidance in a difficult time. This study forms the basis of the guidance issued by the Royal College of Pathologists, available at:https://www.rcpath.org/uploads/assets/626ead77-d7dd-42e1-949988e43dc84c97/RCPath-guidance-for-remote-digital-pathology.pdf.