The growing cost of cancer is too great to ignore. Because in patient-centered care, every decision counts.

Healthcare organizations are under unprecedented pressure to improve quality of care and patient outcomes while at the same time reducing costs. Many departments have already realized the benefits of new technologies to streamline workflow while improving patient satisfaction.

Increased pathology workload vs decrease in pathologists

Pathology, however, has yet to adopt a widespread digital strategy. Cancer diagnoses are expected to double in the next two decades, while the number of pathologists is expected to decline.7 In order to meet growing cancer patient demand, new tools and ways of working are needed.

 Your patients deserve better

  • 10% of breast cancer cases result in surgical treatment changes after a second pathologist opinion.10

 Your bottom line can potentially improve

  • 25% reduction in FTE cost per slide when deploying Integrated Delivery Networks.9

 Your staff can be more productive and efficient

  • 13.4% potential increase in pathologists available time.8
  • 18.5% of an FTE time savings per lab by eliminating case assembly tasks.8

Digital pathology is the beginning of a new level of patient care driven by collaboration, communication and technology. Experts predict that widespread adoption of digital pathology will lead to patients expecting to see their digital slides much in the way they expect to see radiology images and other laboratory reports—enabling patients to be more involved in their care decisions.10 An integrated platform can transform care delivery throughout a healthcare organization.

  1. Office for National Statistics, Cancer Registration Statistics, England, 2012. 19 June 2014.
  2. Eurostat. Physicians by medical specialty. Last update 07-25-2014.
  3. Terence J. Colgan, Laurette Geldenhuys, (2012) The Practice of Pathology in Canada: Decreasing Pathology Supply and Uncertain Outcomes. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine: January 2012, Vol. 136, no 1, pp. 90-94.
  4. Greenlee, Robert T., et al. Cancer Statistics, 2000. Ca Cancer J Clin 2000; 50:7-33.
  5. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2010.
  6. Association of American Medical Colleges Center for Workforce Studies. 2012 Physician Specialty Data Book.
  7. World Health Organization. Accessed July 2014.
  8. Romanoff, et al. Breast Pathology Review: Does It Make a Difference? Annals of Surgical Oncology. Published 24 May 2014.
  9. Report of the Second Phase of the Review of NHS Pathology Services in England, Chaired by Lord Carter of Coles.
  10. Stratman C, Ho J. Digital pathology in the clinical workflow. A Time and Motion Study [abstract]. San Diego, CA: Pathology Visions; 2010.*
  11. Kaplan, KJ Empowering Patients with Digital Pathology. Digital Pathology Blog. September 23, 2014.

*Curtis Stratman is an employee of Omnyx, LLC. Jonhan Ho, MD, is employed by an affiliate of UPMC, which owns one half of Omnyx, LLC. Dr. Ho has received research funding from Omnyx, LLC through the University of Pittsburgh, and has the right to receive proceeds from the sale of Omnyx or its products. Dr. Ho also serves as a consultant to Omnyx, LLC, through an agreement with the University of Pittsburgh Physicians Department of Dermatology.

*The results expressed in this document may not be applicable to a particular site or installation and individual results may vary. This website and its content are provided to you for informational purposes only and do not constitute a representation, warranty or performance guarantee from Omnyx or GE Healthcare.