Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare), Radboud Institute for Health Sciences (RIHS), Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Department of Pathology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences (RIMLS), Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Oncogene. 2023 Sep;42(38):2816-2827. doi: 10.1038/s41388-023-02797-1. Epub 2023 Aug 16.
Computational pathology (CPath) algorithms detect, segment or classify cancer in whole slide images, approaching or even exceeding the accuracy of pathologists. Challenges have to be overcome before these algorithms can be used in practice. We therefore aim to explore international perspectives on the future role of CPath in oncological pathology by focusing on opinions and first experiences regarding barriers and facilitators. We conducted an international explorative eSurvey and semi-structured interviews with pathologists utilizing an implementation framework to classify potential influencing factors. The eSurvey results showed remarkable variation in opinions regarding attitude, understandability and validation of CPath. Interview results showed that barriers focused on the quality of available evidence, while most facilitators concerned strengths of CPath. A lack of consensus was present for multiple factors, such as the determination of sufficient validation using CPath, the preferred function of CPath within the digital workflow and the timing of CPath introduction in pathology education. The diversity in opinions illustrates variety in influencing factors in CPath adoption. A next step would be to quantitatively determine important factors for adoption and initiate validation studies. Both should include clear case descriptions and be conducted among a more homogenous panel of pathologists based on sub specialization.
计算病理学（CPath）算法可在全切片图像中检测、分割或分类癌症，其准确度可与病理学家相媲美，甚至更高。然而，在这些算法能够实际应用之前，还需要克服一些挑战。因此，我们旨在通过关注关于障碍和促进因素的意见和初步经验，探讨计算病理学在肿瘤病理学中的未来作用的国际观点。我们采用实施框架进行了国际探索性电子调查和对病理学家的半结构化访谈，以对潜在影响因素进行分类。电子调查结果显示，对 CPath 的态度、可理解性和验证的意见存在显著差异。访谈结果表明，障碍主要集中在可用证据的质量上，而大多数促进因素则与 CPath 的优势有关。对于多个因素，如使用 CPath 进行充分验证的确定、CPath 在数字化工作流程中的首选功能以及 CPath 在病理教育中的引入时间等，均未达成共识。意见的多样性说明了 CPath 采用的影响因素存在差异。下一步将是定量确定采用的重要因素，并启动验证研究。两者都应包括明确的案例描述，并在基于亚专业的更同质的病理学家小组中进行。
