OPINION
Clear information is needed to light the way to digital success
The 36th European Congress of Pathology, generally known as ECP 2024, took place recently, and after meeting with 50-plus vendors over three days, I’m sharing some thoughts on my main takeaways from the event. After a few initial discussions, it quickly emerged that there remains a significant amount of obscurity within the digital pathology market today, it seems that industry ‘fog’ is getting thicker, and clear information is required to light the way towards success. This is primarily centred around three
areas. Firstly, there is a lack of clear case studies and references for customers to follow during the digitisation process. Whilst generic guidance and return on investment (ROI) calculators are valuable, nothing trumps clear peer-to-peer communication which can help support decision-making with clearly defined examples of success. These case studies are also likely to be much better received if publicly available and collated in one place for ease of comparison. Whilst customers today expect their vendors to act as partners and guides in the digitisation journey, vendor-neutral sources of information can act as additional, unbiased reference points to reiterate and add credibility to messaging – this is where vendor-neutral individuals and industry associations can offer support.
Knowing the market Secondly, as the market evolves it’s also becoming harder both for customers and vendors to clearly distinguish between various product and market announcements. A prime example of this lies within vendor partnerships, where it can be difficult to ascertain through press releases what each announcement really means. Not all
New AI vendors are entering the market each month, making it harder for customers and vendors to keep track of developments and compare solutions
partnerships result in success, and not all vendors mean the same thing when using buzzwords like interoperability; this also rings true when comparing vendor products, especially AI solutions. New AI vendors are entering the market each month, making it harder for customers and vendors to keep track of developments and compare solutions – this is part of the reason workflow software is beginning to incorporate multi-algorithm overlays, which can be used to compare the output of different solutions. However, as vendors seek to integrate their solutions tightly with third-party AI, further support is needed to ensure that such costly investments are made with only the right partners. This leads to another question: which AI companies are generating clinical revenue? Recent industry announcements have many vendors curious about the future of vendors focusing on clinical AI, and it’s no secret that although pathologists are interested in AI’s potential, not many can commit funds at this point. Several press releases exist announcing customer adoption of solutions; but often what is unclear is how and when such solutions are incorporated into clinical use. The market has come to expect ‘free trials’ that can last a significant amount of time, and whilst some vendors may be able to cite high numbers of users of their products, this doesn’t mean that all are paying full price.
Doing the sums Finally, the ROI laboratories can get from digitisation is still largely unclear. Applying the various indirect and direct benefits to be gained from digital pathology to real-world settings is difficult. This issue will eventually be alleviated through the availability of case studies as mentioned above, but as more and more laboratories explore the potential of de-identified asset monetisation and telepathology consulting, further benefits are expected to become clear. Unfortunately, obscurity around ROI and a lack of financial incentive/support within clinical domains is likely to mean that the market will consolidate in the near term, but this doesn’t mean that the overall digital pathology market isn’t moving forward. As networks like NHS Wales and the Veneto (Italy) region prove, clinical markets do see the potential AI has to
WWW.PATHOLOGYINPRACTICE.COM DECEMBER 2024 About Imogen Fitt
Imogen Fitt is a Senior Market Analyst at Signify Research. Imogen joined Signify in 2018 as part of the Healthcare IT team. She holds a First-class Biomedical Sciences degree from the University of Warwick where her studies included molecular biology and pharmacology. Since joining the team Imogen has studied the medical imaging software and hardware markets and is now expanding Signify Research’s Diagnostics and Lifesciences coverage.
www.signifyresearch.net
improve clinical care. It’s just a matter of timing and funding.
Digitisation is no small investment, so whilst the industry is nascent it’s only natural for adoption to be slowed as laboratories tread carefully. But as mentioned, there are ways the industry can help support this transition. Context, however, is important, and digital pathology in both clinical and research settings operates within a wider environment that must be considered to truly understand the industry’s future evolution.
A complex eco-system There are further trends that are likely to act as drivers and barriers to the industry’s success in the near term. For instance, a wider trend impacting many healthcare markets is the slow evolution towards what is known as ‘value-based care’. This is a healthcare model wherein providers are reimbursed not for performing specific procedures, but instead are compensated according to the overall health outcomes of patients.
Many digital pathology AI vendors are seeking to develop models and products paired with such outcomes data to move beyond quantification and into predictive care. Whilst vendors in the market today choose to justify investment in digital pathology with measures of efficiency gains, products of the future will be able to shift focus to more comprehensive outcomes data and directly tie digital pathology analyses to better patient outcomes.
Imogen Fitt Senior Market Analyst, Signify Research 5
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
