Evaluation of Whole Slide Imaging Systems Prior to Establishing a Model Digital Pathology Network for the Air Force Medical Service: Methods and Selection Criteria
Chris Saylor, Drew Lesniak, Liron Pantanowitz, Jon Duboy, Orly Aridor, Leslie Anthony, Nicholas Lancia, Jonhan Ho, Anil V Parwani. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA; 81st Medical Group Hospital, Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, MS
Background: Prior to acquisition of whole slide imaging (WSI) scanners to establish a model digital pathology (DP) network within Air Force Medical Service (AFMS), a comprehensive overview of commercially available WSI scanners was conducted.
Design: To be considered as potential candidates for acquisition, WSI systems had to support sharing of non-cytology anatomic pathology digital slides between multiple geographically remote AFMS pathology centers. Systems had to support select clinical applications/workflows and become security certified by the Air Force and Department of Defense. Evaluation criteria and features were identified and utilized to support scanner selection process.
Results: To match AFMS needs WSI systems had to meet the following key criteria: 1. high-speed scanners providing high-resolution high-quality digital slides; 2. manufacturer/ distributor presence in the US (operations, sales, customer service support); 3. usability; 4. scalable throughput to support network expansion. Scanners that met these criteria underwent comprehensive evaluations and manufacturers were invited to demonstrate their capabilities at a major pathology conference. Objective criteria for the comprehensive evaluations included a select set of technical features, including: scanner slide capacity, scanning capabilities (method, resolution, speed, Z-stack, automation, florescence), optics (camera, objective lens), integration with LIS, and others. During the conference, subjective criteria such as image quality and usability were evaluated. Identical sets containing six preselected glass slides were scanned by each system (prior to the meeting). All images were provided for review via the web and via a locally installed image viewer on a dual-screen workstation. Following demonstrations and image viewings, usability of each scanner and its supporting software (ie, image viewer and data management) was evaluated by AFMS pathologists. Usability evaluation was based on System Usability Scale developed by Brooke et al.
Conclusions: To support acquisition and selection of WSI scanners for an organization/lab, both objective and subjective criteria should be selected for the evaluation process. Pathologist participation is essential to the decision-making process.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:00 PM
Poster Session VI # 267, Wednesday Afternoon