Ilaria Girolami1, Stefania Neri1, Albino Eccher2, Matteo Brunelli3, Mattew Hanna4, Liron Pantanowitz5, Esther Hanspeter1, Guido Mazzoleni1. 1. Department of Pathology, Provincial Hospital of Bolzano (SABES-ASDAA), Bolzano-Bozen, Italy. 2. Department of Pathology and Diagnostics, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy. 3. Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy. 4. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Pathology & Clinical Labs, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
Objective/Background: Telepathology has been widely adopted to allow intraoperative pathology examinations to be performed remotely and for obtaining second opinion teleconsultation. In the Italian northern region of South Tyrol, the widespread geographical distances and consequent cost for the health system of having a travelling pathologist cover intraoperative consultations in peripheral hospitals was a key driver for the implementation of a telepathology system. Methods: In 2010, four Menarini D-Sight whole slide scanners to digitize entire pathology slides were placed in the peripheral hospitals of Merano, Bressanone, Brunico, and in the hub hospital of Bolzano. Digital workstations were also installed to allow pathologists to remotely perform intraoperative consultations with digital slides. This study reviews the outcome after 12 years of telepathology for this intended clinical use. Results: After an initial validation phase with 100 cases which yielded a sensitivity of 65% (CI 43-84%) and specificity of 100% (CI 95-100%), there were 2058 intraoperative consultations handled by telepathology. The cases evaluated were mainly breast sentinel lymph nodes, followed by urological, gynecological and general surgical pathology frozen section specimens. There were no false-positive cases and 165 (8%) false-negative cases, yielding an overall sensitivity and specificity of 65% (CI 61-69%) and 100% (CI 99-100%), respectively. Conclusion: Telepathology is reliable for remote intraoperative diagnosis and, despite technical issues and initial acquaintance issues, proved beneficial for patient care in satellite hospitals, improved standardization, promoted innovation, and resulted in cost savings for the health system.
Objective/Background: Telepathology has been widely adopted to allow intraoperative pathology examinations to be performed remotely and for obtaining second opinion teleconsultation. In the Italian northern region of South Tyrol, the widespread geographical distances and consequent cost for the health system of having a travelling pathologist cover intraoperative consultations in peripheral hospitals was a key driver for the implementation of a telepathology system. Methods: In 2010, four Menarini D-Sight whole slide scanners to digitize entire pathology slides were placed in the peripheral hospitals of Merano, Bressanone, Brunico, and in the hub hospital of Bolzano. Digital workstations were also installed to allow pathologists to remotely perform intraoperative consultations with digital slides. This study reviews the outcome after 12 years of telepathology for this intended clinical use. Results: After an initial validation phase with 100 cases which yielded a sensitivity of 65% (CI 43-84%) and specificity of 100% (CI 95-100%), there were 2058 intraoperative consultations handled by telepathology. The cases evaluated were mainly breast sentinel lymph nodes, followed by urological, gynecological and general surgical pathology frozen section specimens. There were no false-positive cases and 165 (8%) false-negative cases, yielding an overall sensitivity and specificity of 65% (CI 61-69%) and 100% (CI 99-100%), respectively. Conclusion: Telepathology is reliable for remote intraoperative diagnosis and, despite technical issues and initial acquaintance issues, proved beneficial for patient care in satellite hospitals, improved standardization, promoted innovation, and resulted in cost savings for the health system.
The original definition of telepathology was ‘the practice of pathology at a long
distance’, with ‘long distance’ meaning any distance bridged by a telecommunication system
which may range from a few meters separating nearby two rooms in the same
building to thousands of kilometers between geographically separated institutions.
In the last two decades, many experiences regarding telepathology services have been
published,[2-4] with increasing
utilization of whole-slide imaging (WSI) technology for intraoperative consultations
by remotely performing frozen sections (FS). The deployment of digital pathology
with WSI for telepathology has allowed pathology practices to overcome the
constraints of geographical distance among different hospitals within the same
health system, or to even connect with collaborators in different countries. Digital
pathology was particularly helpful during the COVID-19 pandemic as it remotely
permitted continuity of diagnostic anatomical pathology services.
Moreover, digital pathology has proven to be beneficial for non-clinical uses
such as education and research.[6-8]Deployment of digital pathology systems has resulted in cost-savings,
despite the expense of acquiring and maintaining this technology.
The safety and reliability of digital pathology for clinical diagnostic use
has been reported in many published validation studies dealing with different
practice settings ranging from general surgical pathology,[10-13] to intraoperative
services,[14-17] and highly specialized fields
of pathology including neuropathology,[18-20] transplantation
pathology,[14,21,22] and cytopathology.[23-26]More than a decade ago, in the Italian province of South Tyrol, the geographically
widespread intraoperative consultation service was reorganized by introducing a
digital pathology system to digitally connect different hospitals within the region.
This allowed the provincial health system to leverage telepathology in order to
provide cost-effective, expert-level service to patients at all local hospitals.
Herein, we present the outcome of over 12 years of telepathology use in South Tyrol.
This article also discusses the challenges of implementing and sustaining this
frozen section telepathology service.
Materials and methods
Background
South Tyrol is the far north province of Italy, with an area of 7398.38 square
kilometers, mostly covered by mountains and inhabited by a population of about
535,0000 people. The region is historically at the crossroads between north and
south Europe. Most people speak both German and Italian. There is an uneven
distribution of the population, with some medium-sized urban centers and a
myriad of small settlements in the various valleys. The main hospital of the
region is located in the chief town of Bolzano (hub hospital). There are another
six community (spoke) hospitals servicing the mountain communities within the
districts of Merano, Bressanone, and Brunico (Figure 1, map credit to Ref.
). The main pathology department, located in the hub hospital of Bolzano,
gathers all specimens coming from the smaller spoke hospitals so that they can
be processed for surgical pathology and cytopathology examination. The hub
pathology service employs pathologists with expertise in various
subspecialties.
Figure 1.
Geographical map of South Tyrol (credits for the map to Ref.
).
Geographical map of South Tyrol (credits for the map to Ref.
).Given the geographical setting, there are logistical difficulties for patients to
travel to Bolzano to undergo specific surgeries that may need a frozen section
performed by a subspecialist pathologist to accurately guide intraoperative
surgical management. Prior to deploying a digital pathology solution to overcome
this hindrance, the intraoperative service was handled by having pathologists
from the hub hospital physically travel with a laboratory technician to the
spoke hospital whenever surgery was planned that may need an intraoperative
examination. This legacy situation was very time and resource consuming. Travel
costs (where an estimated round trip travel time ranged from 50 min to 2.5 h)
were covered by the public health system. Moreover, pathologists who traveled to
cover the frozen section service could not sign out any other patient cases at
these spoke hospital, nor were they available for additional activities in the
hub hospital such as participating in tumor boards or helping their colleagues
who needed consultation with difficult cases. Notably, the lab technicians who
had to also travel to assist with the frozen section procedure were
underutilized in this setting. The first attempt to deploy a telepathology
system dates back to 2003, with a single spoke hospital using a robotic
telepathology system with no slide scanning capabilities. This early robotic
microscope was controlled remotely by a pathologist in the hub hospital. Over
time, the number of required intraoperative consultations greatly increased.
Additionally, as changes were made to the information technology (IT)
infrastructure this early deployed system became obsolete. Therefore, in 2010 it
was decided to adopt a newer digital telepathology system with whole slide
scanning capabilities.
Telepathology system
Workstations (digital cockpit with computer monitor) for pathologists to examine
digital slides, as well as a small footprint whole slide scanner to digitize
entire glass slides, were located and connected via the Internet in the hub
hospital and spoke hospitals of the district towns of Merano, Bressanone, and
Brunico (Figure 2). The
scanners were D-Sight instruments (Menarini) with five slide capacity and 4×,
10×, 20× and 40× scanning magnifications. The scanner weight was less than 30 kg
and only 60 cm in width (dimensions 60 × 40 × 40 cm). Scanning resolution was
0.5 μm/pixel at 20× and 0.25 μm/pixel at 40×. Scanning times was only a few
minutes for image acquisition at 20×. Digital slides were in JPEG 2000 format.
The workstations included monitors with a 30″ with 2560 × 1600 resolution. For
each workstation, a mid-range computer equipped with Microsoft Windows operating
system (e.g. Windows XP, updated to Windows 7), there was a 1 Gbps optical fiber
internet connection among the hub and spoke hospitals. D-Sight software was
installed on the desktop workstation to control the scanner and navigate the
image viewer. For data storage and retrieval of images, along with corresponding
metadata (e.g. case notes, diagnostic text, technical details of image), a
Microsoft SQL server database was installed.
Figure 2.
The workstations at the hub hospital of Bolzano (right) and each of the
spoke hospitals at Merano, Bressanone, and Brunico. The arrows indicate
the direction of image transmission during intraoperative
teleconsultation.
The workstations at the hub hospital of Bolzano (right) and each of the
spoke hospitals at Merano, Bressanone, and Brunico. The arrows indicate
the direction of image transmission during intraoperative
teleconsultation.
Validation and training
All laboratory personnel involved in the on-call intraoperative telepathology
service received training. After technical testing and before use in routine
activity, the system was validated. The validation study utilized a mixed
population of 100 cases chosen to represent the average type of cases likely to
be encountered with routine clinical activity. Most of the intraoperative
consultations were comprised of breast sentinel lymph nodes
(n = 60 cases), followed by urological specimens for margin
assessment (n = 17 cases), and a lesser number of other organs
(gynecopathology, eight cases; gastrointestinal system, seven cases, peritoneal
biopsy, three cases; lung, two cases; thyroid two cases; testis, one case).
These cases were collected retrospectively for the purpose of validation and
there was a single pathologist involved in validation. Glass slides for the
selected cases were digitized and those digital slides were diagnosed first at
the hub hospital to test the system, then they were later reviewed (washout time
range 2–21 days) using glass slides and a traditional light microscope by the
same pathologist, so in this phase a direct comparison between diagnosis on
telepathology and diagnosis on glass slide was assessed. Technical problems
occurred twice, which were related to inferior internet connectivity. It should
be noted that at time of deployment of this telepathology service, no official
guidelines on validation had been published, given that the most referenced
guideline from the College of American Pathologists (CAP) dates to 2013
and newer updated have come further.[29,30] Nevertheless, when such
recommendations became available in 2013 the system was re-validated on the same
case set by another pathologist accordingly to the CAP guidelines, similar to
other projects started in the same years.
Telepathology workflow
The frozen section rooms in the spoke hospitals are located near the operating
rooms. During an intraoperative consultation, in one of these rooms, the surgeon
prepares the gross specimen and chooses where to sample, and a lab technician
processes the sample to provide FS slides. The technician subsequently loads the
slides into an on-site D-Sight instrument to scan them and when scanning is
complete calls the on-call pathologist in the hub hospital via a dedicated
telephone line. The technician can decide independently to cut a new FS slide if
warranted (e.g. deeper tissue levels are needed for microscopic interpretation)
or to rescan a slide if the scanned slide is perceived to be out of focus or of
low quality. At the hub hospital, the on-call pathologist accesses the dedicated
digital cockpit and connects to the spoke hospitals’ D-Sight console to remotely
visualize the digitized slide. The pathologist can remotely navigate around the
slide (x and y axis) and zoom up to 400× magnification. When the pathologist has
established their diagnosis, a full screen image at low magnification of the
case is acquired and archived as a small-sized digital file, along with the
diagnosis in a repository. The pathologist communicates the FS diagnosis by
phone with the surgeon waiting in the spoke hospital. Thereafter, the lab
technician in the spoke hospital regains control of the workstation, records the
result of the examination, and prepares all the material (e.g. specimen, glass
slides) for subsequent delivery to the hub hospital. The FS slide and the
cassette with the specimen are sent to the hub hospital, where normal processing
to obtain a permanent section is done. The pathologist (in most of cases the
same who did the telepathology diagnosis) receives both the original FS glass
slide and the new permanent section, together with deeper sections and
immunohistochemistry slides in case of sentinel lymph node.
Quantitative analysis
The total number and type of diagnostic intraoperative examinations performed
during the 12 years utilizing telepathology were extracted from the pathology
information system, together with discordances identified between the FS and
final (definitive) diagnosis. A major discordance is defined as a discrepancy
that would have changed the patient’s management, while a minor discordance is a
discrepancy in diagnosis not resulting in any significant consequence for
patient management. A descriptive synthesis of the data is provided highlighting
any difficulties encountered, benefits achieved, and the cost-savings of
employing digital pathology for this purpose. Concerning the economic issues, we
considered in the analysis of cost-benefit on one side the costs of the
instrumentations (scanners, workstations, maintenance and assistance); and on
the other side, an estimate of the costs of travelling for pathologists and
technicians and the indirect costs of pathologists not being able to sign out
other diagnosis in the day of intraoperative service in a spoke hospital.
Results
Pilot phase
The overall diagnostic concordance rate (digital vs. glass) was 85% and the
Cohen’s Kappa was 0.794 (CI 95% 0.660–0.928). Of the concordant cases, 52 out of
85 (61%) were sentinel lymph node specimens. The deferral rate (to glass slides
during final signout) was 5% and deferred cases included two testicular biopsies
for malignancy, an ovarian lesion, a lung nodule, and questionable capsular
invasion of a thyroid nodule. There were no false-positive cases; no specimens
negative for cancer were erroneously diagnosed as positive for cancer by
telepathology. There were eight false-negative cases and all were concerned with
sentinel lymph nodes with either micrometastases or macrometastases up to 4 mm
in size. Altogether, the validation phase yielded a sensitivity when using the
telepathology system of 65% (CI 43–84%) and specificity of 100% (CI
95–100%).
Routine service
During the time span of 2010–2021, there were a total of 2058 intraoperative
pathology consultations at the three spoke hospitals, all using the
telepathology system. This comprised a total of 3078 frozen sections (mean
number of sections cut per case was 1.5). The population of cases was as
follows: 55% (N = 1129) of these intraoperative consultations
involved examination of breast sentinel lymph nodes, 20%
(N = 406) concerned evaluation of urological specimens, 9%
(N = 190) were gynecological specimens, 9%
(N = 191) were gastrointestinal specimens and 3%
(N = 51) concerned endocrine organs, while the rest was
represented by a miscellaneous quota of other requests to assess for adequacy of
tissue material, evaluation of resection margins, diagnose breast or thoracic
lesions and examine peritoneal biopsies for carcinomatosis. A graph of case
types is reported in Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Graphical distribution of case population.
Graphical distribution of case population.Scanning times ranged from 3 min 57 s to 7 min 45 s (average time to scan a case
was 4 min 52 s). The total time for an intraoperative examination ranged from
10 min to 30 min. The time span between diagnosis on FS and definitive diagnosis
depended upon organization of routine activity (e.g. subsequent rotation on
grossing of case, time for technicians to deliver permanent sections) and ranged
between 2 and 10 days. The overall concordance rate was 92% after review of
glass slides with a light microscope for a final definitive diagnosis. There
were no false-positive cases, but there were 165 (8%) false-negative cases in
which cancer was later detected. Therefore, telepathology for overall
intraoperative examinations showed a sensitivity of 65% (CI 61–69%) and
specificity of 100% (CI 99–10%) with a general accuracy of 92% (CI 91–93%), with
Cohen’s Kappa of 0.742 (CI 95% 0.705–0.778). Major discordances for the
false-negative cases included misdiagnosis of metastasis in a sentinel lymph
node, cancer infiltration in a margin specimen, and presence of high-grade
dysplasia. For the assessment of breast sentinel lymph node specimens, the
concordance rate was 92% with Cohen’s Kappa of 0.731 (CI 95% 0.679–0.782).
Subsequent review of glass slides with light microscope for a final definitive
diagnosis revealed no false-positive cases for submitted sentinel lymph nodes,
but there were 90 (8%) false-negative cases in which a metastasis was later
detected. Therefore, telepathology for sentinel lymph node evaluation showed a
sensitivity of 63% (CI 57–69%) and a specificity of 100% (CI 99–100%) with a
general accuracy of 92% (CI 90–94%). A representative imagine of paired FS,
permanent section and deep stepwise section of a breast lymph node with
micrometastasis is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Paired images of a representative case of sentinel lymph node where FS
was negative (a), permanent section showed more adipose tissue and
histiocytes (b), while a micrometastasis appeared only in a deeper
section cut according to sentinel lymph node protocol examination
(c).
Paired images of a representative case of sentinel lymph node where FS
was negative (a), permanent section showed more adipose tissue and
histiocytes (b), while a micrometastasis appeared only in a deeper
section cut according to sentinel lymph node protocol examination
(c).
Estimate of cost-savings
The total cost for the instrumentation (4 scanner, the complete workstations,
maintenance, assistance and the time spent on training) was quantified in about
250,000 Euros, with the scanners representing the main expensive part with a
little less than 50,000 Euros each. There were expenses for travelling,
comprising taxation for autoroutes, fuel, insurance costs for the vehicles
property of the hospital trust and their maintenance, and injury and accident
insurance of the personnel travelling among hub and spoke hospital on work
hours. There was variability in the loans of pathologists and technicians in the
time span, but an indirect expense was considered the fact that the pathologist
and the technician on the day of intraoperative service were not available to
sign out other cases nor preparing other slides, so on a rotation scheme of ten
pathologists and technician on a monthly base (weekends excluded) every day they
were deployed for less than ten cases. Moreover, if there was a need for
intraoperative service at the same time in two spoke hospitals, other
pathologist and technician must move from the hub hospital, with doubled costs.
Taking these issues into account, a projected saving of about 40,000 Euros per
year was estimated, with the offset of the costs after six years of use of the
system.
Discussion
The implementation of a telepathology service for intraoperative consultation was a
turning point for the delivery of pathology services in the public healthcare
network in South Tyrol. This system demonstrated similar results in terms of
feasibility, safety and reliability compared with other published experiences around
the world, where the barrier of geographical distance was the main stimulus for
implementing such a system.[4,32-36] Overall, the diagnostic
performance of the telepathology system showed a specificity of 100% and sensitivity
of 65%, with an overall accuracy of 92%. A major limitation was the limited
adherence to evidence-based guidelines for validation,[28-30] given that during the initial
validation phase the cases were not chosen in a consecutive manner and the washout
period (time between digital vs. glass reads) was lower than the two weeks
prescribed in the CAP guideline. Nevertheless, the system was since validated
according to published CAP guidelines in 2013. We also have to acknowledge that
another limitation could be represented by the presence of a comparison of
telepathology FS with definitive diagnosis on permanent section, and not with FS on
conventional glass slide. Indeed, the instances of discrepancy between FS on
telepathology and glass slide were very few, required always the confirmation with
permanent section and serial sectioning, and were not collected formally in final
reports. This is relevant, as the proportion of errors due to telepathology and not
to sampling error could not be assessed, but such an analysis was formally done only
during the validation phase, then the system was used routinely without formal
reporting of this issue. However, an indirect comparison could be derived from
literature specifically analyzing concordance of FS telepathology.
Studies with large mixed case populations reported a very high concordance
rate (98–99.8%) between digital FS with WSI and FS with glass slide,[4,34,38] and this could indirectly
indicate that in studies where the telepathology FS is compared with definitive
diagnosis like ours the major quota of errors could be due to sampling error of the
FS itself. The sampling of specimens is done by the surgeons and not the
technicians, and in the majority of cases the specimen was frozen and examined
entirely (single lymph nodes, margins, small biopsies); therefore, the quota of
sampling error is difficult to quantify and potentially remove. During the study
period, several external factors impacted the intraoperative activity. In recent
years, the absolute number of intraoperative consultations requested decreased
slightly due to a diminished clinical need to examine breast sentinel lymph nodes.
Telepathology activity also decreased in the last two years because of the COVID-19
pandemic, during which time major surgeries were delayed or cancelled.The accuracy or concordance rate appears to be slightly lower than what has been
reported in other recent systematic reviews.
However, the system in South Tyrol was in use since 2010. Since then, the
system software had been updated, but no updates were made to the scanner hardware
device or monitors. Newer imaging systems have better cameras and optics to generate
high resolution images. This may explain why more recently published studies
reported better diagnostic performance.
Nonetheless, there are some recently published studies with a similar design
as ours with telepathology FS compared to definitive diagnosis on permanent section,
showing similar results in terms of overall concordance rate. Interestingly, these
studies focus on other specific pathology setting such as pancreatobiliary and liver pathology
or lung and thoracic pathology[40,41] and show concordance rates
ranging 92.9–96.7%. Other recent studies are focused specifically on lymph nodes
assessment and show slightly higher concordance rate, but with all the issues of
discrepancy concerning indeed micrometastases of breast cancer.
Taken together, these comparisons with recent experiences with a similar
study design and comparable achievements indicate that our system has shown a
non-inferior performance. Most importantly, no false-positive cases were recorded in
our study; in other words, no diagnosis of cancer was made via telepathology that
was later changed after reviewing the permanent glass slides with a traditional
microscope. Thus, there were no instances of overtreatment of patients. Conversely,
there were some false-negative cases where metastases in breast sentinel lymph nodes
were missed. Most of these false negatives were attributed to micrometastases that
were subsequently discovered only after serial sectioning of these nodes and
performing immunohistochemical studies. Since these metastases were not identified
on the FS slides, the reason for the false negative is the result of sampling error.
This is in line with literature on the topic, highlighting that FS itself has very
good diagnostic performance concerning detection of macrometastases, but inferior
sensitivity in detection of micrometastases and isolated tumor cells.[43,44]
False-negative rates range in international studies between 5% to 43% and also in
large centers is comparable to ours.
The potential negative consequence of a false-negative FS diagnosis of a
sentinel node should be evaluated is not that severe, considering that the
indications for axillary dissection have changed over time. Indeed, in patients with
breast cancer of low stage I–II with no clinical and radiological suspicion of lymph
node involvement, even 1–2 positive sentinel nodes would not necessarily be an
indication for a complete axillary dissection if radiotherapy and systemic therapy
are offered.[46-49]Following deployment of the aforementioned digital pathology network feedback was
provided by surgeons, lab technicians, and pathologists. The main challenges for
surgeons were the necessity to schedule an FS and provide details ahead of time of
the exact specimen to be analyzed intraoperatively, as well as slight prolongation
of surgery times. However, these drawbacks were counterbalanced by the increased
control surgeons had with handling specimens themselves, closer interaction with
expert pathologists based at the hub hospital, and the convenience for their
patients to be able to undergo oncological surgery at a district spoke hospital
instead of travelling to the chief hub hospital. The main challenge reported by
technicians was the need to better reorganize their routine work at spoke hospitals,
in order to accommodate additional on-call intraoperative consultation duties.
Nevertheless, technical personnel showed a general positive attitude towards
adopting this technology.The principal challenge encountered by pathologists was their initial unfamiliarity
and skepticism towards using the digital pathology solution for telepathology.
However, their hesitancy decreased over time and today remotely reading an FS at one
of the spoke hospitals via telepathology has become routine practice and the
digitized FS slides are perceived as routine as the FS provided traditionally at the
hub hospital. Deploying the telepathology system also forced standardization of how
FS cases were handled at all locations (e.g. same instruments, cryoembedding medium,
stain protocols). This also improved the quality of slides, making them
easier to scan and view on a monitor. The biggest advantage for pathologists, and
the technician on-call for this intraoperative service, was that they no longer had
to waste time travelling to the spoke hospitals. As a result, there were
cost-savings related to the recovered time of the medical and technical workforce.
It is difficult to precisely quantify this cost saving due to the variation of
diverse factors (e.g. loss of productivity, salaries, travel expenses). Nonetheless,
after the initial cost of 250,000 euros to set-up of the entire digital pathology
system (four scanners, computers with monitors, and time spent on training), a
projected savings of more than 40,000 euros/year was estimated calculated secondary
to better rationalization of personnel activities and ceasing expenses for travel.
However, we clearly acknowledge that this study is not intended as a health
economics evaluation study,
and the projections reported are to be considered in the overall benefits of
the telepathology system.
Conclusion and future directions
In conclusion, the results of using telepathology for remote intraoperative
consultations in South Tyrol for greater than 10 years demonstrate not only the
feasibility and safety of utilizing such a system in a geographically complex
territory, but also benefits related to quality of clinical diagnoses, convenient
patient access to expert care, and cost savings. Moreover, the use of telepathology
in a public health setting showcases the role of digital pathology to drive
innovation and standardization in diagnostic pathology practice.
Authors: David R J Snead; Yee-Wah Tsang; Aisha Meskiri; Peter K Kimani; Richard Crossman; Nasir M Rajpoot; Elaine Blessing; Klaus Chen; Kishore Gopalakrishnan; Paul Matthews; Navid Momtahan; Sarah Read-Jones; Shatrughan Sah; Emma Simmons; Bidisa Sinha; Sari Suortamo; Yen Yeo; Hesham El Daly; Ian A Cree Journal: Histopathology Date: 2015-12-06 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Ronald S Weinstein; Anna R Graham; Lynne C Richter; Gail P Barker; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Ana Maria Lopez; Kristine A Erps; Achyut K Bhattacharyya; Yukako Yagi; John R Gilbertson Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2009-06-24 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: G E Orchard; M Shams; C d'Amico; K Wojcik; F Ismail; M Mohammad; R Salih; F Shams; R Mallipeddi Journal: Br J Biomed Sci Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 3.829