- Digital pathology is often approached as a minor adjustment to established practices, rather than as a substantive workflow change
- The major challenge in digital pathology at the moment is the storage and management of massive amounts of data
- To make a successful move to digital, it’s important to have pathologist buy-in, LIMS integration, and scalable, future-proof technology
- It’s not the solution to every problem, but digital pathology offers the chance to improve workflow efficiency with manageable cost and effort
In 2016, Alec Hirst and Chris Evagora, in partnership with their clinical leads Luis Beltran and Dorota Markiewicz, set up their company, Pathognomics. Their vision? To design and deliver a fully end-to-end digital histopathology laboratory to prove that whole digital pathology can work in a diagnostic environment – and that it can be implemented in a timely and cost-effective way. A lofty goal perhaps, given that Hirst and Evagora were working out of a garage rather than the shiny, fully outfitted building of an industry player… Nevertheless, in under a year, they had built a wet laboratory, designed and implemented a diagnostic digital solution, successfully met Care Quality Commission (CQC) and National Health Service (NHS) Digital Information Governance (IG) Toolkit standards, and have been offered ISO15189:2012 accreditation. The laboratory has been operating diagnostically for six months and the team have completed 4,000 cases with two NHS trusts, as well as dentists and private healthcare providers. To learn more about their workflow and how others can learn from their approach to digital pathology, we sat down with Hirst.
What’s wrong with existing lab workflows?
The current approaches to laboratory practice are well-established, with some elements that have hardly changed at all over the last few decades. There is a drive to improve laboratory practice through automation tied to digital aspects, such as barcodes and macro-images, but these changes have been slow because, until recent years, laboratory quality assurance in the UK was captured under Clinical Pathology Accreditation. With the advent of international standards (ISO15189:2012), there has been improved assurance – but it has been more of a migration of established practices than a substantive change to laboratory assurance. As yet, no international standard has been developed to address the changes in digital aspects of pathology, particularly digital slide management. In addition, there is a lack of integration between regulating bodies – particularly with respect to data management and data security, which is assured under other legislation requiring skills outside of those needed in a traditional laboratory. This creates a need for more training, new staff members, or both, which can make it difficult to migrate a laboratory to a fully digital workflow. To make such a migration work, we need to solve our key problem: data management. Digital pathology creates lots and lots of data. Where do you store it all? How do you retrieve it when you need it? Cloud-based solutions are both popular and important to delivering digital pathology, but the wrong type is expensive, and one cloud solution does not fit all. In trying to find the perfect solution, we have concluded that a lab should ideally use a mix of local hardware and cloud-based platforms to manage day-to-day operations, store digital slides, and backup information. Another significant hurdle is the human factor. People often find it difficult to accept change, especially a transition as major as moving from traditional to digital pathology – and even if everyone is on board, there’s still a need for extensive training and education in the new workflow. To compound the difficulty, laboratory information management systems (LIMS) and image archiving and communication systems are not designed specifically for histopathology, meaning that they can be difficult to use in a tissue laboratory, and may mismanage data in a way that complicates the workflow or introduces the potential for error. Finally, it can be extremely difficult to obtain the proper accreditations for a fully digital workflow. Working with emerging technologies may mean that there is very little literature to draw on – trial and error can become your best friend.How have you tackled those challenges?
We have designed and built our own LIMS to knit together established laboratory practice with digital tools. It’s designed specifically for histopathology and is a fully integrated digital platform validated and verified under our ISO15189:2012 schedule. In addition to diagnostic data, it manages staff training, ISO documents, reagent platforms, and finances, giving us a complete laboratory workflow that improves efficiency and significantly reduces our software overhead. In designing our LIMS, we have addressed all prerequisites for digital pathology under ISO15189:2012, IG Toolkit, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and CQC:- Quality control of images and patient reports,
- Responsive diagnostic environment,
- No local installation (minimizing user impact),
- Fast image transmission within IVD-CE controlled software technology, and
- Cost-effective image presentation and archiving in line with recommendations (currently 10 years for all images used for diagnoses).