Journal of Pathology Informatics Journal of Pathology Informatics
Contact us | Home | Login   |  Users Online: 482  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

Year : 2021  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 39

Testing of actual scanner performance in a high-loaded UNIM laboratory environment

1 UNIM LLC, Moscow, Russia
2 Department of Pathology, Faculty of Pediatric, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov Medical University), Moscow, Russia

Correspondence Address:
Mikhail Yurevich Genis
Podsosenskaya Lane, 23, b. 6., Moscow 105062
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jpi.jpi_4_21

Rights and Permissions

Background: Scanners are the main tool in digital pathology. The technical abilities of scanners determine the workflow logic in the pathology laboratory. Its performance can be restricted by the divergence between the scanning time presented by the manufacturer and the actual scanning time. This could lead to critical deviations from the established business processes in a 24/7 laboratory. Aim: Our investigation is focused in exploring the performance of three main models of high-performance scanners available on the Russian market: 3DHistech, Hamamatsu и Leica. Objectives: We compared the performance of the scanners on the samples of a given size with the manufacturer's stated specifications and evaluated the speed of the scanners on the reference and routine laboratory material. Subjects and Methods: We examined 3DHistech Pannoramic 1000, Hamamatsu NanoZoomer s360 and Leica AT2 with default settings and automatic mode. Two sets of glasses were used (glass slide): Group 1 included 120 slides with 15 mm × 15 mm slices, Group 2 included 120 workflow slides. Results: The average slide scan times in Groups 1 and 2 for the C13220 (156 ± 1.25 s and 117 ± 4.17 s) and Pannoramic 1000 (210 ± 1.64 s and 183 ± 3.78 s) differ statistically significantly (P < 0.0001). Total scanning time including rack reloading was shorter for the workflow slide set group for the modern C13220 and Pannoramic 1000 scanner models. Conclusions: The scanner specifications provided by manufacturers are not sufficient to evaluate the performance. The guidelines and regulations concerning scanner selection should be consented by the digital pathology community. We suggest discussing criteria for evaluating scanner performance.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded232    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal