DP solutions?

[stodiecs]

I'm new here and looking forward to connecting with folks.

Right now, I'm trying to look more into DP and wondering if anyone here has experience with it?
I know it's a pretty new field but thought covid might have accelerated it a bit. Can you recommend any specific scanners and software I should look into?

On that same note, if I go down the route of going (at least partially) digital, there might be an opportunity for doing multiplex IHC it assisted algorithm read or cell counting. Do you have any thoughts on this?

We almost made it through the week,
Cheers,
Isabel

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LADoc00]

There are 2 competing platforms at the moment for digi: Leica and Philips. Leica purchased Aperio which was the real innovator in a sense for commercial digi but I hear more positive reviews of Philips.

There are smaller companies and other big companies getting into it now so options will expand further for certain.

 

[KeratinPearls]

We are in the digital age. Residencies should no longer be using microscopes and glass slides. They should be going all digital. If they can’t afford it then they lose their ACGME accreditation! Good idea?

I mean Bitcoin Aka Digital Gold, CRISPR technology, AI, self driving vehicles and here we are looking at glass slides through microscopes. Now you know why our field has been lagging.

ALL programs should be digital Path by now. Residents and fellows queuing up digital images in their offices would be attractive to medical students.

 

[AZpath]

We are in the digital age. Residencies should no longer be using microscopes and glass slides. They should be going all digital. If they can’t afford it then they lose their ACGME accreditation! Good idea?

I mean Bitcoin Aka Digital Gold, CRISPR technology, AI, self driving vehicles and here we are looking at glass slides through microscopes. Now you know why our field has been lagging.

ALL programs should be digital Path by now. Residents and fellows queuing up digital images in their offices would be attractive to medical students.

All the technology in the world can't help pathology's image problem.

 

[deleted314957]

All the technology in the world can't help pathology's image problem.

Let’s face it. The autopsy as we know it must be gone from hospitals. Leave it as an elective. Lots of top quality folks are turned off by the posts.

 

[Guest8]

We are in the digital age. Residencies should no longer be using microscopes and glass slides. They should be going all digital. If they can’t afford it then they lose their ACGME accreditation! Good idea?

I mean Bitcoin Aka Digital Gold, CRISPR technology, AI, self driving vehicles and here we are looking at glass slides through microscopes. Now you know why our field has been lagging.

ALL programs should be digital Path by now. Residents and fellows queuing up digital images in their offices would be attractive to medical students.

What percentage of hospitals even have access to digital path yet?

 

[AZpath]

I bet it is 5%-10% overall. A lot of cost not that much benefit for smaller groups with a histolab at that location.
It is most helpful with large groups with many locations.
Also, residency programs with a lot of tumor board and meetings

I can see a few cool things that I might do with DP but not enough are billable. I would need to offset the cost to buy one.

 

[KeratinPearls]

What percentage of hospitals even have access to digital path yet?

Only good academic hospitals where residency training should remain. All those other ones who can’t afford it should be closed. We are in 2021 not 1901!

 

[octopusprime]

Let’s face it. The autopsy as we know it must be gone from hospitals. Leave it as an elective. Lots of top quality folks are turned off by the posts.

which is funny because you tell the avg layperson you're a 'pathologist' and they think you basically do autopsies all day.

is part of the 'image problem' related to how good of a job our predecessors did in cementing our position "under the radar"? I mean pathologists in the Golden 80s and before made a freaking KILLING. Widespread CP billing? No digital trail / EMR? Pre-CLIA '88? I know a few but have heard stories of many more of these fabled "filthy rich introverts" [not my words].

 

[KeratinPearls]

Agree. Another way to make Pathology great again is to take out autopsies. Autopsies should be done by dieners and any interesting findings can be presented at gross Conference with slide histo pathologic correlation. Most residents hate autopsies. Time for change ABP!

 

[fecalith]

I guess I am the only one who would rather do autopsies all day than sign out lol

 

[Alteran]

Unless there’s a CPT code modifier for DP to account for the added infrastructure expense and maintenance, we have no intention of purchasing. The microscopes only cost us twice a year cleaning and electricity, the slides next to nothing for storage.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

We are in the digital age. Residencies should no longer be using microscopes and glass slides. They should be going all digital. If they can’t afford it then they lose their ACGME accreditation! Good idea?

I mean Bitcoin Aka Digital Gold, CRISPR technology, AI, self driving vehicles and here we are looking at glass slides through microscopes. Now you know why our field has been lagging.

ALL programs should be digital Path by now. Residents and fellows queuing up digital images in their offices would be attractive to medical students.

Digital and microscopes aren't that different. When pushing glass is finally replaced by molecular, then you can say the lag is gone.

 

[stickyshift]

I'm new here and looking forward to connecting with folks.

Right now, I'm trying to look more into DP and wondering if anyone here has experience with it?
I know it's a pretty new field but thought covid might have accelerated it a bit. Can you recommend any specific scanners and software I should look into?

On that same note, if I go down the route of going (at least partially) digital, there might be an opportunity for doing multiplex IHC it assisted algorithm read or cell counting. Do you have any thoughts on this?

We almost made it through the week,
Cheers,
Isabel

Our farflung practice of around 25 pathologists is almost entirely on DP now. We use the Philips system.

We really like it. We can start signing out our cases as soon as we arrive in the morning. Even better, intragroup consultations take place nearly instantaneously, which is important for us because most of us work alone. So, I can get a second opinion from one of my colleagues in around half an hour or less.

It takes a little getting used to, but I think we're all up to speed now. The biggest challenge in transitioning from glass to digital is learning new methods to see everything that's in the image. It's not quite as easy to visually scan a digital image as it is to scan a glass slide, and the first few times you look at a TURP digitally, you will have the distinct feeling that you are taking your professional life in your own hands. We all used to worry about the resolution of the images, i.e., whether they would be sharp enough. But that's not an issue at all anymore--especially if you use a large monitor (as I'm sure you would). The images are enormous and hi-res (what used to take a 40x objective to see under light microscopy probably takes only 5x or10x on a big monitor). The far bigger problem is that it's easier to miss a focus somewhere in the image, the one with the metastatic ca or invasive component...

 

[deleted314957]

Our farflung practice of around 25 pathologists is almost entirely on DP now. We use the Philips system.

We really like it. We can start signing out our cases as soon as we arrive in the morning. Even better, intragroup consultations take place nearly instantaneously, which is important for us because most of us work alone. So, I can get a second opinion from one of my colleagues in around half an hour or less.

It takes a little getting used to, but I think we're all up to speed now. The biggest challenge in transitioning from glass to digital is learning new methods to see everything that's in the image. It's not quite as easy to visually scan a digital image as it is to scan a glass slide, and the first few times you look at a TURP digitally, you will have the distinct feeling that you are taking your professional life in your own hands. We all used to worry about the resolution of the images, i.e., whether they would be sharp enough. But that's not an issue at all anymore--especially if you use a large monitor (as I'm sure you would). The images are enormous and hi-res (what used to take a 40x objective to see under light microscopy probably takes only 5x or10x on a big monitor). The far bigger problem is that it's easier to miss a focus somewhere in the image, the one with the metastatic ca or invasive component...

I would just stick with my scope and save the digital stuff for group consult. After 30+ years of pushing glass, there would be no reason to try to improve on perfection.

 

[Spikebd]

Our farflung practice of around 25 pathologists is almost entirely on DP now. We use the Philips system.

We really like it. We can start signing out our cases as soon as we arrive in the morning. Even better, intragroup consultations take place nearly instantaneously, which is important for us because most of us work alone. So, I can get a second opinion from one of my colleagues in around half an hour or less.

It takes a little getting used to, but I think we're all up to speed now. The biggest challenge in transitioning from glass to digital is learning new methods to see everything that's in the image. It's not quite as easy to visually scan a digital image as it is to scan a glass slide, and the first few times you look at a TURP digitally, you will have the distinct feeling that you are taking your professional life in your own hands. We all used to worry about the resolution of the images, i.e., whether they would be sharp enough. But that's not an issue at all anymore--especially if you use a large monitor (as I'm sure you would). The images are enormous and hi-res (what used to take a 40x objective to see under light microscopy probably takes only 5x or10x on a big monitor). The far bigger problem is that it's easier to miss a focus somewhere in the image, the one with the metastatic ca or invasive component...

I don’t like how sluggish it feels scanning through digital path slides. Do you think there would be significant time inefficiencies going through 9 levels of A biopsy using a pure digital method? The scope feels much faster. Maybe it’s something we can adapt to with more practice