| Literature DB >> 33042599 |
Daniel S Liscia1, Donata Bellis1, Elena Biletta1, Mariangela D'Andrea1, Giorgio A Croci2, Umberto Dianzani3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In this study, we report on our experience using digital pathology to overcome the severe limitations imposed on health care by the Covid-19 outbreak in Northern Italy. Social distancing had a major impact on public transportation, causing it to run with reduced timetables. This resulted in a major challenge for hospital commuters. To limit the presence in our hospital of no more than two pathologists at a time out of four, a web-based digital pathology system (DPS) was employed to work remotely. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We used a DPS in which a scanner, a laboratory information system, a storage device, and a web server were interfaced so that tissue slides could be viewed over the Internet by whole-slide imaging (WSI). After a brief internal verification test, the activity on the DPS was recorded, taking track of a set of performance and efficiency indicators. At the end of the study, 405 cases were signed out remotely.Entities:
Keywords: Covid-19; digital pathology; pandemic; whole-slide imaging
Year: 2020 PMID: 33042599 PMCID: PMC7518211 DOI: 10.4103/jpi.jpi_32_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pathol Inform
Figure 1The map shows where Biella and Milan are placed in Northern Italy. The double arrow shows the distance between Biella, which is in the region of Piedmont, and the border of Lombardy, traced in red. Lombardy is the region where the first cases of Covid-19 where detected
Laptops and monitors used in this study for remote reporting. Resolution and screen size are indicated
| Type | Model | Resolution (pixels) | Screen size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laptop | HP 250 G7 | 1920 × 1080 | 15.6” |
| Laptop | Lenovo Essential V145 | 1366 × 768 | 15.6” |
| Laptop | ASUS M509BA-BR001T | 1366 × 768 | 15.6” |
| Monitor | Philips 226V4LSB | 1920 × 1080 | 22” |
| Monitor | HP 27e | 1920 × 1080 | 27” |
Brief verification test with a training set of five prostate needle biopsy cases scanned at ×40. For each case, an average of 12 slides was available with three sections on each one
| Pathologist | Case | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 1 | Pos (G 3+4) | Pos (G 3+3) | Pos (G 3+4) | Pos (G 3+3) | Neg |
| 2 | Pos (G 3+4) | Pos (G 3+3) | Pos (G 3+4) | Pos (G 3+3) | Neg |
| 3 | Pos (G 3+4) | Pos (G 3+3) | Pos (G 3+4) | Pos (G 3+3) | Neg |
| 4 | Pos (G 3+3) | Pos (G 3+4) | Pos (G 3+3) | Pos (G 3+3) | Neg |
Kappa statistic: 0.68, SE of kappa: 0.166, 95% confidence interval: 0.36–1.00. Pos: Positive for adenocarcinoma, Neg: Negative for adenocarcinoma, G: Gleason grading
Of 693 cases, 405 (58.4%) were signed out remotely using digital pathology
| Number of cases | DP | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Head and neck | 42 | 22 | 52.4 |
| Breast | 49 | 31 | 63.3 |
| Gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary | 102 | 71 | 69.6 |
| Gynecology | 192 | 97 | 50.5 |
| Genitourinary | 112 | 69 | 61.6 |
| Skin | 75 | 57 | 76.0 |
| Hematopathology | 93 | 44 | 47.3 |
| Lung | 13 | 7 | 53.8 |
| Soft tissues | 15 | 7 | 46.7 |
| Total: | 693 | 405 | 58.4 |
DP: Digital pathology
Six key indicators were used to monitor remote diagnostic activity
| Indicator | |
|---|---|
| Back to slide | 30 (7.4) |
| Rescan | 3 (0.7) |
| Recut | 8 (2.0) |
| Panel discussion | 34 (8.4) |
| Consultation | 17 (4.2) |
| Review | 1 (0.2) |