Bridging the Gap: The Critical Role of Regulatory Affairs and Clinical Affairs in the Total Product Life Cycle of Pathology Imaging Devices and Software

Digital pathology implementation in cancer diagnostics: towards informed decision-making

Digital pathology (DP) has become a part of the cancer healthcare system, creating additional value for cancer patients. DP implementation in clinical practice provides plenty of benefits but also harbors hidden ethical challenges affecting physician-patient relationships. This paper addresses the ethical obligation to transform the physician-patient relationship for informed and responsible decision-making when using artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools for cancer diagnostics. DP application allows to improve the performance of the Human-AI Team shifting focus from AI challenges towards the Augmented Human Intelligence (AHI) benefits. AHI enhances analytical sensitivity and empowers pathologists to deliver accurate diagnoses and assess predictive biomarkers for further personalized treatment of cancer patients. At the same time, patients' right to know about using AI tools, their accuracy, strengths and limitations, measures for privacy protection, acceptance of privacy concerns and legal protection defines the duty of physicians to provide the relevant information about AHI-based solutions to patients and the community for building transparency, understanding and trust, respecting patients' autonomy and empowering informed decision-making in oncology.

Comparison of four different displays for identification of select pathologic features extracted from whole slide images of surgical pathology cases

BACKGROUND

The establishment of minimum standards for display selection for the whole slide image (WSI) interpretation has not been fully defined. Recently, pathologists have increasingly preferred using remote displays for clinical diagnostics. Our study aims to assess and compare the performance of three fixed work displays and one remote personal display in accurately identifying ten selected pathologic features integrated into WSIs.

DESIGN

Hematoxylin and eosin-stained glass slides were digitized using Philips scanners. Seven practicing pathologists and three residents reviewed ninety WSIs to identify ten pathologic features using the LG, Dell, and Samsung and an optional consumer-grade display. Ten pathologic features included eosinophils, neutrophils, plasma cells, granulomas, necrosis, mucin, hemosiderin, crystals, nucleoli, and mitoses.

RESULTS

The accuracy of the identification of ten features on different types of displays did not significantly differ among the three types of "fixed" workplace displays. The highest accuracy was observed for the identification of neutrophils, eosinophils, plasma cells, granuloma, and mucin. On the other hand, a lower accuracy was observed for the identification of crystals, mitoses, necrosis, hemosiderin, and nucleoli. Participant pathologists and residents preferred the use of larger displays (>30″) with a higher pixel count, resolution, and luminance.

CONCLUSION

Most features can be identified using any display. However, certain features posed more challenges across the three fixed display types. Furthermore, the use of a remote personal consumer-grade display chosen according to the pathologists' preference showed similar feature identification accuracy. Several factors of display characteristics seemed to influence pathologists' display preferences such as the display size, color, contrast ratio, pixel count, and luminance calibration. This study supports the use of standard "unlocked" vendor-agnostic displays for clinical digital pathology workflow rather than purchasing "locked" and more expensive displays that are part of a digital pathology system.

Diagnostic quality model (DQM): an integrated framework for the assessment of diagnostic quality when using AI/ML

BACKGROUND

Laboratory medicine has reached the era where promises of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) seem palpable. Currently, the primary responsibility for risk-benefit assessment in clinical practice resides with the medical director. Unfortunately, there is no tool or concept that enables diagnostic quality assessment for the various potential AI/ML applications. Specifically, we noted that an operational definition of laboratory diagnostic quality - for the specific purpose of assessing AI/ML improvements - is currently missing.

METHODS

A session at the 3rd Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Laboratory Medicine in 2022 on "AI in the Laboratory of the Future" prompted an expert roundtable discussion. Here we present a conceptual diagnostic quality framework for the specific purpose of assessing AI/ML implementations.

RESULTS

The presented framework is termed diagnostic quality model (DQM) and distinguishes AI/ML improvements at the test, procedure, laboratory, or healthcare ecosystem level. The operational definition illustrates the nested relationship among these levels. The model can help to define relevant objectives for implementation and how levels come together to form coherent diagnostics. The affected levels are referred to as scope and we provide a rubric to quantify AI/ML improvements while complying with existing, mandated regulatory standards. We present 4 relevant clinical scenarios including multi-modal diagnostics and compare the model to existing quality management systems.

CONCLUSIONS

A diagnostic quality model is essential to navigate the complexities of clinical AI/ML implementations. The presented diagnostic quality framework can help to specify and communicate the key implications of AI/ML solutions in laboratory diagnostics.

Companion diagnostic requirements for spatial biology using multiplex immunofluorescence and multispectral imaging

Immunohistochemistry has long been held as the gold standard for understanding the expression patterns of therapeutically relevant proteins to identify prognostic and predictive biomarkers. Patient selection for targeted therapy in oncology has successfully relied upon standard microscopy-based methodologies, such as single-marker brightfield chromogenic immunohistochemistry. As promising as these results are, the analysis of one protein, with few exceptions, no longer provides enough information to draw effective conclusions about the probability of treatment response. More multifaceted scientific queries have driven the development of high-throughput and high-order technologies to interrogate biomarker expression patterns and spatial interactions between cell phenotypes in the tumor microenvironment. Such multi-parameter data analysis has been historically reserved for technologies that lack the spatial context that is provided by immunohistochemistry. Over the past decade, technical developments in multiplex fluorescence immunohistochemistry and discoveries made with improving image data analysis platforms have highlighted the importance of spatial relationships between certain biomarkers in understanding a patient's likelihood to respond to, typically, immune checkpoint inhibitors. At the same time, personalized medicine has instigated changes in both clinical trial design and its conduct in a push to make drug development and cancer treatment more efficient, precise, and economical. Precision medicine in immuno-oncology is being steered by data-driven approaches to gain insight into the tumor and its dynamic interaction with the immune system. This is particularly necessary given the rapid growth in the number of trials involving more than one immune checkpoint drug, and/or using those in combination with conventional cancer treatments. As multiplex methods, like immunofluorescence, push the boundaries of immunohistochemistry, it becomes critical to understand the foundation of this technology and how it can be deployed for use as a regulated test to identify the prospect of response from mono- and combination therapies. To that end, this work will focus on: 1) the scientific, clinical, and economic requirements for developing clinical multiplex immunofluorescence assays; 2) the attributes of the Akoya Phenoptics workflow to support predictive tests, including design principles, verification, and validation needs; 3) regulatory, safety and quality considerations; 4) application of multiplex immunohistochemistry through lab-developed-tests and regulated in vitro diagnostic devices.

Computational pathology in 2030: a Delphi study forecasting the role of AI in pathology within the next decade

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly fuelling a fundamental transformation in the practice of pathology. However, clinical integration remains challenging, with no AI algorithms to date in routine adoption within typical anatomic pathology (AP) laboratories. This survey gathered current expert perspectives and expectations regarding the role of AI in AP from those with first-hand computational pathology and AI experience.

METHODS

Perspectives were solicited using the Delphi method from 24 subject matter experts between December 2020 and February 2021 regarding the anticipated role of AI in pathology by the year 2030. The study consisted of three consecutive rounds: 1) an open-ended, free response questionnaire generating a list of survey items; 2) a Likert-scale survey scored by experts and analysed for consensus; and 3) a repeat survey of items not reaching consensus to obtain further expert consensus.

FINDINGS

Consensus opinions were reached on 141 of 180 survey items (78.3%). Experts agreed that AI would be routinely and impactfully used within AP laboratory and pathologist clinical workflows by 2030. High consensus was reached on 100 items across nine categories encompassing the impact of AI on (1) pathology key performance indicators (KPIs) and (2) the pathology workforce and specific tasks performed by (3) pathologists and (4) AP lab technicians, as well as (5) specific AI applications and their likelihood of routine use by 2030, (6) AI's role in integrated diagnostics, (7) pathology tasks likely to be fully automated using AI, and (8) regulatory/legal and (9) ethical aspects of AI integration in pathology.

INTERPRETATION

This systematic consensus study details the expected short-to-mid-term impact of AI on pathology practice. These findings provide timely and relevant information regarding future care delivery in pathology and raise key practical, ethical, and legal challenges that must be addressed prior to AI's successful clinical implementation.

FUNDING

No specific funding was provided for this study.