1 / 29

Teleconferencing for Pathologists

Teleconferencing for Pathologists. Adam Landman Heathcare Information Systems February 24, 1999. Outline. Introduction to Pathology Introduction to Telepathology Major Software Vendors Requirements Evaluation Recommendation. Introduction to Pathology.

blaine
Download Presentation

Teleconferencing for Pathologists

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Teleconferencing for Pathologists Adam Landman Heathcare Information Systems February 24, 1999

  2. Outline • Introduction to Pathology • Introduction to Telepathology • Major Software Vendors • Requirements • Evaluation • Recommendation

  3. Introduction to Pathology

  4. Diagnosis ~ 5 - 7 min, Turnaround < 15 min Large universities and hospitals provide this service on demand Frozen Section - small sections of tissue removed from a patient during surgery requiring diagnosis Surgical Pathology • What about smaller or outlying hospitals?

  5. What about smaller/outlying hospitals? • “Travelling Salesman” -- rely on periodic visits from pathologists • Surgeries must be scheduled to coincide with visit • What if pathologist is not present? • Glass slides express mailed to remote laboratory • Patient may have to undergo second surgery after diagnosis is available • Neither solution is very efficient!

  6. Introduction to Telepathology • Telepathology - practice of pathology from a distance • viewing images on a video monitor rather than light microscope • Images acquired by video camera mounted on light microscope • Images transmitted over a telecommunications link to remote workstation for analysis by telepathologist Referring Pathologist Telepathologist

  7. Microscope Control Slave Master Static Images Dynamic Telepathology System Types • What kinds of images are displayed? • Who has control over selection of images? FTP Video Conferencing Dynamic Robotic

  8. Source: Weinstein, R.S., K.J. Bloom, and L.S. Rozek. 1990. “Static and Dynamic Imaging in Pathology,” in: Mun, S.K., Greberman, M., Hendee, W.R., and Shannon, R. (eds.), Image Management and Communications in Patient Care: Implementation and Impact. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Soc. Press, pp. 77-85. Static vs. Dynamic Systems

  9. Telepathology Issue • Static image analysis not normal • Control of microscope • Sequence of images can affect outcome • Omissions are unacceptable • Can video images be used by pathologists to render primary diagnostic opinions or second opinions?

  10. Telepathology Issues (cont.) • Static Imaging -- overall diagnostic accuracy fails to meet accuracy standards (Ito, et al) • Video Microscopy -- validated for diagnostic pathology by Weinstein et al • 15” Sony Trinitron 950-line monitor • 11” Sony 300-line monitor • Dynamic-Robotic -- achieved overall diagnostic accuracy equal to that of light microscopy (Shimosato et al) • So what??

  11. Telepathology Issues (cont.) • Static imaging is unacceptable for diagnosis • Dynamic-robotic is best, but expensive and difficult to setup and operate We will consider COTS Video Conferencing products (dynamic, slave)

  12. Microsoft NetMeeting 2.0 Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 800-426-9400 http://www.microsoft.com/netmeeting/ White Pine Enhanced CU-SeeMe White Pine Software, Inc.542 Amherst StreetNashua, New Hampshire 03063 800-241-PINE http://www.wpine.com/ Major Vendors

  13. Requirements • Developed requirements based on background and consultation with two experienced UPMC anatomic pathologists • Compatibility • Performance • Product Features • Standards • Ease of Use • Administrative

  14. Compatibility Requirement • Compatibility with Existing Environment • Teleconferencing software must be compatible with hardware and software environment Note: Compatibility is not pertinent to ultimate product comparison

  15. Typical Technical Environment

  16. Performance Requirements Performance --> Image Quality, Compression, Frame Rate • Image Quality • Difficult to standardize • 1,024x768 pixels, 16-bit resolution not currently possible with video conferencing • Current capability: • 128x96 pixels, Sub Quarter Common Intermediate Format (SQCIF) • 176x140 pixels, Quarter Common Intermediate Format (QCIF) • 352x288 pixels, Common Intermediate Format (CIF)

  17. Performance Requirements • Compression • Decrease file size, Increase network performance • Two standard video codecs: • H.263 - low bandwidth (28.8 Kbps modem) • H.261 - high bandwidth (LAN and ISDN) • Frame Rate • Video 24 fps, Film 30 fps • Internet frame rate much lower expectations (12-15fps) • Rate using two ranges: • 3-7 fps for low bandwidth • 7-15 fps for high bandwidth

  18. Product Feature Requirements • Multipoint data conferencing - allows users to collaborate and share information with one or more meeting participants in real-time. • Audio conferencing - allows pathologist to talk in real-time with colleagues. • Video conferencing - allows pathologist to send and receive video images. • consider how many concurrent video sessions are possible • pathologist’s facial image • microscope field view

  19. Product Feature Requirements • Whiteboard – allows users to share pictures, draw diagrams, and graphically update information in real time. • Application Sharing – lets users share Windows application with other participants in a meeting. • might be useful for application to control robotic microscope • Chat – text-based chat application. • Binary File Transfer – enables files to be sent to participants during a meeting. • natural integration of standard static telepathology

  20. Standards Requirements • Standards - ensure users can call, connect, and communicate with people using compatible conferencing products • International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Standards • T.120 - standard for multipoint data conferencing • H.323 - standard for audio and video conferencing • Broad industry support with > 120 vendors participating

  21. Ease of Use Requirements • “Easy to Use” is imperative for Pathologists • Difficult to evaluate without using software • Proxies • Installation Wizard • Graphical User Interface • On-line Help

  22. Administrative Requirements • Miscellaneous software attributes: • Cost • particularly important in hospitals and labs with budget constraints (everywhere!) • Product support • Upgradeability • Cross-platform support

  23. Evaluation • Developed priority weights in collaboration with two experienced UPMC anatomic pathologists

  24. Evaluation

  25. Evaluation

  26. Recommendation • Microsoft NetMeeting 2.0 • Cost-effective solution that delivers a complete, integrated Internet conferencing solution suited to meet the needs of the practicing pathologist • Sensitivity Analysis of weights • Formal methodology may have been overkill • CU-SeeMe major revision due March 1999

  27. Recommendation (Limitations) • Not generalizable to larger user community • Needs more complete analysis • hands-on usage of products • General telepathology issues need consideration • Medical-legal • Diagnostic accuracy • Patient confidentiality

  28. Acknowledgements/References Special thanks to Ms. Yukako Yagi, Dr. John Gilbertson, and Dr. Bob Dawson for their assistance and insightful comments. • Vaughn, G.L., “Tendencies of pathologists in observing frozen sections,” feasibility study, UAB Center for Telecommunications Education & Research, 1994. • Weinstein, R.S., K.J. Bloom, and L.S. Rozek. 1990. “Static and Dynamic Imaging in Pathology,” in: Mun, S.K., Greberman, M., Hendee, W.R., and Shannon, R. (eds.), Image Management and Communications in Patient Care: Implementation and Impact. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Soc. Press, pp. 77-85. • Ito, H., H. Adachi, K. Taniyama, Y. Fukuda, and K. Dohi. 1994. “Telepathology Is Available for Transplantation-Pathology: Experience in Japan Using an Integrated, Low-Cost, and High-Quality System,” Modern Pathology, 17: 801-05. • Oberholzer, M., H-R Fischer, H. Christen, S. Gerber, M. Bruhlmann, M. Mihatsch, M. Famos, C. Winkler, P.Fehr, L. Bachthold, and K. Kayser. 1993. “Telepathology with an Integrated Services Digital Network – A New Tool for Image Transfer in Surgical Pathology, A Preliminary Report.” Human Pathology, 24: 1078-85. • Eide, T.J., and I. Nordrum. 1992. “Frozen Section Service via the Telenetwork in Northern Norway,” Zentralblatt Pathologie, 138: 409-12. • Bloom, K.J., L.S. Rozek, and R.S. Weinstein. 1987. “ROC Curve Analysis of Super High Resolution Video for Histopathology,” SPIE Proc Visual Image Process, 845: 408-12. • http://www.zdnet.com/pccomp/features/fea0297/sub5.html/ • http://www.microsoft.com/netmeeting • http://www.wpine.com/

  29. Questions

More Related