Slide Scanning

Scanner evaluation ranges from initial purchase and vendor selection all the way to routine quality control during ongoing scan operation. A standardized and scientifically sound approach for scanner evaluation, which clearly delineates the necessary features for analytical studies, is currently missing. Current regulatory scanner evaluation methods are very costly (>1M USD). Aside from “special controls” – regulators do not
“dictate” which imaging features need to be examined. As a consequence, each sponsor creates their lists ad-hoc (and related to their respective intended uses); however, iterative studies, increased labor, and interoperability pose problems. A survey or consensus-driven method to create an examination “checklist” for technical and analytical scanner evaluations is currently missing.

Key Elements, Next Steps, Timeline

 
  1. Standardization of definitions, convene interested stakeholders 

  2. Technical target(s), survey for suitability

  3. Work on DEFINITIONS Education campaign

  4. Standard tissue target

  5. Characterization of scanner artifacts

  6. Characterization (intro) to histology artifacts

 

Concerns & Problems

 
  1. Slide scanning is integral to digital pathology

  2. High-throughput vs. high-quality can be perceived as a key limitation factor for continued innovation.  

  3. Slide scanning workflows are difficult and in need of focused education efforts

  4. Slide scanning for clinical vs. research in one workflow.

  5. Unanticipated parameter(s) may turn out to be critical (e.g. z-stacking for cyto; polarization; immunofluorescence)

 

Value Proposition

 
  1. Common parameters that characterize any scanner

  2. Enables the objective assessment of the common parameters in 1

  3. Parameters as key variables for quality with relevance for patient care, clinical, R&D and regulatory

 

Implications & Efforts

 
  1. Increases uniformity of scanner evaluations.  

  2. Levels the competitive towards a comparative environment.

  3. Should simplify the evaluation time and design time for new scanners (known endpoints)

  4. Implications & efforts needs to be determined

 Current Projects

News & Updates



Relevant Publications

 

A quantitative approach to evaluate image quality of whole slide imaging scanners

Date: December 2016

Authors: Shrestha et al.

Link: Pubmed

Computational pathology definitions, best practices, and recommendations for regulatory guidance: a white paper from the Digital Pathology Association

Date: November 2019

Authors: Abels et al.

Link: Pubmed

HistoQC: An Open-Source Quality Control Tool for Digital Pathology Slides

Date: April 2019

Authors: Janowczyk et al.

Link: Pubmed

IMI-Bigpicture: A Central Repository for Digital Pathology

Date: February 2021

Authors: Moulin et al.

Link: Pubmed

 

How does image quality affect radiologists' perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography?

Date: January 2021

Authors: Boita et al.

Link: Pubmed

Whole slide imaging: The futurescape of histopathology

Date: January-March 2021

Authors: Jayaram N Iyengar

Link: Pubmed

Developing a Qualification and Verification Strategy for Digital Tissue Image Analysis in Toxicological Pathology

Date: December 2020

Authors: Zuraw et al.

Link: Pubmed

Validating Whole Slide Imaging Systems for Diagnostic Purposes in Pathology

Date: May 2021

Authors: Evans et al.

Link: Download PDF here

 

Group Leader

 
Scott Blakely.jpg

Scott Blakely

Coming soon