Background:Numerous validation studies in digital pathology confirmed its value as a diagnostic tool. However, a longer time to diagnosis than traditional microscopy has been seen as a significant barrier to the routine use of digital pathology. As a part of our validation study, we compared a digital and microscopic diagnostic time in the routine diagnostic setting.Materials and Methods:One senior staff pathologist reported 400 consecutive cases in histology, nongynecological, and fine needle aspiration cytology (20 sessions, 20 cases/session), over 4 weeks. Complex, difficult, and rare cases were excluded from the study to reduce the bias. A primary diagnosis was digital, followed by traditional microscopy, 6 months later, with only request forms available for both. Microscopic slides were scanned at ×20, digital images accessed through the fully integrated laboratory information management system (LIMS) and viewed in the image viewer on double 23” displays. A median broadband speed was 299 Mbps. A diagnostic time was measured from the point slides were made available to the point diagnosis was made or additional investigations were deemed necessary, recorded independently in minutes/session and compared.Results:A digital diagnostic time was 1841 and microscopic 1956 min; digital being shorter than microscopic in 13 sessions. Four sessions with shorter microscopic diagnostic time included more cases requiring extensive use of magnifications over ×20. Diagnostic time was similar in three sessions.Conclusions:A diagnostic time in digital pathology can be shorter than traditional microscopy in the routine diagnostic setting, with adequate and stable network speeds, fully integrated LIMS and double displays as default parameters. This also related to better ergonomics, larger viewing field, and absence of physical slide handling, with effects on both diagnostic and nondiagnostic time. Differences with previous studies included a design, image size, number of cases, specimen type, network speed, and participant's level of confidence and experience in digital reporting. Further advancements in working stations and gained experience in digital reporting are expected to improve diagnostic time and widen routine applications of digital pathology.

We reviewed the role of telemedicine in multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, which play an important role in the provision of effective and tailored patient care in diverse clinical settings. This article is based on conducted search in PubMed. Search terms included “telemedicine,” “multidisciplinary team,” and “(telemedicine) and (multidisciplinary team).” Telemedicine provides an important advantage in the provision of MDT meeting comparing with traditional settings. Those include improved access to and collaboration of medical experts. This resulted in increased levels of medical competence and improved provisions of diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up to patients irrespective of location.

Background:Increased workload, case complexity, financial constraints, and staffing shortages justify wider implementations of digital pathology. One of its main advantages is distance reporting.Aim:A feasibility study was conducted at our institution in order to achieve comprehensive pathology services available by distance.Methods:One senior pathologist reported 950 cases (3,650 slides) by distance during 19 weeks. Slides were scanned by ScanScope AT Turbo (Aperio) and digital images accessed through SymPathy (Tieto) on a 14” laptop. Mobile phone, mobile broadband, broadband over Wi-Fi and broadband were used for internet connections along with a virtual private network technology (VPN). Lync (Microsoft) was tested for one case consultation and resident's teaching session. Larger displays were accessed when available. Effects of ergonomics and working flexibility on the user experience were observed. Details on network speed, frequency of technical issues, data usage, scanning, and turnaround, were collected and evaluated. Turnaround was compared to in-office microscopic reporting, measured from the registration to sign off.Results:Network speeds varied 1–80 Mbps (median download speed 8–65 Mbps). 20 Mbps were satisfactory for the instant upload of digital images. VPN, image viewer, and laptop failed on two occasions each. An estimated data usage per digital image was 10 MB (1–50 MB). Two cases (15 slides) were deferred to microscopic slides (0.21/0.41%) due to scanty material and suboptimal slide quality. Additional nine cases (15 slides) needed to be rescanned for various reasons (0.95/0.41%). Average turnaround was shorter, and the percentage of cases reported up to 3 days higher (3.13 days/72.25%) comparing with in-office microscopic reporting (3.90 days/40.56%). Larger displays improved the most user experience at magnifications over ×20.Conclusions:Existing IT solutions at our institution allow efficient and reliable distance reporting for the core pathology services in histology and cytology. Stable network speeds, fully integrated laboratory information management system, technical reliability, working flexibility, larger displays, and shorter turnaround contributed to the overall satisfaction with distance reporting. A further expansion of our pathology services available by distance, diagnostic and educational, rely on gaining experience in digital reporting and marginal IT investment. Adjustments to the organization of pathology services may follow to fully benefit from the implementation of digital pathology.

The treatment strategy for metastatic breast diseases is based on a proper assessment of such cases by surgeons, radiologists and histopathologists.

Background:Validation studies in digital pathology addressed so far diverse aspects of the routine work. We aimed to establish a complete remote digital pathology service.Methods:Altogether 2295 routine cases (8640 slides) were reported in our studies on digital versus microscopic diagnostics, remote reporting, diagnostic time, fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) clinics, frozen sections, and diagnostic sessions with residents. The same senior pathologist was involved in all studies. Slides were scanned by ScanScope AT Turbo (Aperio). Digital images were accessed through the laboratory system (LS) on either 14” laptops or desktop computers with double 23” displays for the remote and on-site digital reporting. Larger displays were used when available for remote reporting. First diagnosis was either microscopic, digital, or remote digital only (6 months washout period). Both diagnoses were recorded separately and compared. Turnaround was measured from the registration to sign off or scanning to diagnosis. A diagnostic time was measured from the point slides were made available to the point of diagnosis or additional investigations were necessary, recorded independently in minutes/session, and compared. Jabber Video (Cisco) and Lync (Microsoft) were interchangeably used for the secure, video supervision of activities. Mobile phone, broadband, broadband over Wi-Fi, and mobile broadband were tested for internet connections. Nine autopsies were performed remotely involving three staff pathologists, one autopsy technician, and one resident over the secure video link. Remote and on-site pathologists independently interpreted and compared gross findings. Diverse benefits and technical aspects were studied using logs or information recorded in LS. Satisfaction surveys on diverse technical and professional aspects of the studies were conducted.Results:The full concordance between digital and light microscopic diagnosis was 99% (594/600 cases). A minor discordance, without clinical implications, was 1% (6/600 cases). The instant upload of digital images was achieved at 20 Mbps. Deference to microscopic slides and rescanning were under 1%. Average turnaround was shorter and percentage of cases reported up to 3 days higher for remote digital reporting. Larger displays improved the most user experience at magnifications over ×20. A digital diagnostic time was shorter than microscopic in 13 sessions. Four sessions with shorter microscopic diagnostic time included more cases requiring extensive use of magnifications over ×20. Independent interpretations of gross findings between remote and on-site pathologists yielded full agreement in the remote autopsies. Delays in reporting of frozen sections and FNAC due to scanning were clinically insignificant. Satisfaction levels with diverse technical and/or professional aspects of all studies were high.Conclusions:Complete routine remote digital pathology services are found feasible in hands of experienced staff. The introduction of digital pathology has improved provisions and organi...