Current state of the regulatory trajectory for whole slide imaging devices in the USA

Journal of Pathology Informatics

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Abels, Esther ^a   Pantanowitz, Liron ^b  

^a PHILIPS RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

De novo; Digital; Digital pathology; Digital Pathology Association; Food and Drug Administration; Premarket approval; Regulation; Whole slide imaging

Indexed keywords

EID: 85034427958     PISSN: 22295089     EISSN: 21533539     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4103/jpi.jpi-11-17     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Pantanowitz L, Parwani AV. Digital Pathology. Chicago, USA: ASCP Press; 2017.
2. Titus K. Regulators scanning the digital scanners. CAP Today 2012;26: 56-62.
3. Parwani AV, Hassell L, Glassy E, Pantanowitz L. Regulatory barriers surrounding the use of whole slide imaging in the United States of America. J Pathol Inform 2014;5: 38.
4. DPA Recommends whole Slide Imaging Manufacturers Submit De novo Applications to the FDA for Primary Diagnosis in the United States. Available from: http: //www.prweb.com/releases/2016/01/ prweb13163307.htm. [Last accessed 2017 Feb 01].
5. FDA Overview of Device Regulation. Available from: http: //www.fda. gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/default. htm. [Last accessed on 2017 Feb 01].
6. The 510(k) Program: Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications [510(k)]; 2014. Available from: http: //www.fda. gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/ GuidanceDocuments/UCM284443.pdf#page=25. [Last accessed 2017 Feb 05].
7. Faison TA. Historical Overview of FDA Regulation of Digital Pathology Imaging Applications: The Safety and Effectiveness Issues. Available from: http: //www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/.../ MedicalDevices/.../UCM201450.ppt. [Last accessed on 2017 Feb 01].
8. Lange H. Digital pathology: A regulatory overview. Lab Med 2011;42: 587-91.
9. Têtu B, Evans A. Canadian licensure for the use of digital pathology for routine diagnoses: One more step toward a new era of pathology practice without borders. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014;138: 302-4.
10. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Vink A, Leguit RJ, Offerhaus GJ, Ten Kate FJ, et al. Whole slide images for primary diagnostics in dermatopathology: A feasibility study. J Clin Pathol 2012;65: 152-8.
11. Stathonikos N, Veta M, Huisman A, van Diest PJ. Going fully digital: Perspective of a Dutch academic pathology lab. J Pathol Inform 2013;4: 15.
12. Thorstenson S, Molin J, Lundström C. Implementation of large-scale routine diagnostics using whole slide imaging in Sweden: Digital pathology experiences 2006-2013. J Pathol Inform 2014;5: 14.
13. FDA Open to Whole-slide Imaging as Class II Device. CAP Today; 2016. Available from: http: //www.captodayonline.com/ fda-open-whole-slide-imaging-class-ii-device/. [Last accessed on 2017 Mar 07].
14. DPA Regulatory Task Force. Available from: https: // www.digitalpathologyassociation.org/digital-pathologyassociation-regulatory-committee. [Last accessed on 2017 Feb 01].
15. FDA Technical Performance Assessment of Digital Pathology Whole Slide Imaging Devices. Available from: http: //www.fda.gov/downloads/ MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ UCM435355.pdf. [Last accessed on 2017 Feb 01].
16. Allen TC. Comes digital pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015;139: 972.
17. FDA Draft Guidance for WSI, on Behalf of the Digital Pathology Association, Public Statement. Available from: https: / /www. d igitalpathologyassociat ion.org/fda-draf t - guidance-for-whole-slide-imaging. [Last accessed on 2017 Feb 05].
18. Put it on the Board. Guidance Seen as Sign of FDA Openness to Digital Pathology. Available from: http: //www.captodayonline.com/ put-board-616/. [Last accessed 2017 Feb 05].
19. Badano A, Revie C, Casertano A, Cheng WC, Green P, Kimpe T, et al. Consistency and standardization of color in medical imaging: A consensus report. J Digit Imaging 2015;28: 41-52.
20. Leo P, Lee G, Shih NN, Elliott R, Feldman MD, Madabhushi A. Evaluating stability of histomorphometric features across scanner and staining variations: Prostate cancer diagnosis from whole slide images. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2016;3: 047502.
21. Wack K, Drogowski L, Treloar M, Evans A, Ho J, Parwani A, et al. A multisite validation of whole slide imaging for primary diagnosis using standardized data collection and analysis. J Pathol Inform 2016;7: 49.
22. FDA Letter to Philips. Available from: https: //www.accessdata.fda.gov/ cdrh-docs/pdf16/DEN160056.pdf. [Last accessed on 2017 May 05].
23. FDA News Release. Availavle from: https: //www.fda.gov/newsevents/ newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm552742.htm. [Last accessed on 2017 May 05].
24. Feldman M, Rubin BP, Moskaluk CA, Cacciabeve N, Lindberg G, Nelis M, et al. A large multicenter, retrospective non-inferiority study to evaluate diagnostic concordance between optical vs. digital microscopic diagnoses in 2000 surgical pathology cases. Mod Pathol 2017;30: 395A.