Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 9, 2026
Author Spotlight: Investigating Immune Cell Dynamics in the Tumor Microenvironment — Challenges and Innovations in Cancer Prognosis
Published on: April 12, 2024
Better resource utilisation and quality of care for ovarian cancer patients using internet-based pathology review
S Kommoss1, F Kommoss2, J Diebold3
1Department of Women's Health, Tübingen University Hospital, Calwer Street 7, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.
Background:
The current literature indicates that a considerable number of patients in ovarian carcinoma clinical trials have histopathological diagnoses in conflict with inclusion criteria. It has been suggested that specialised pathology review prior to randomisation should become the standard procedure in study protocols. We hypothesised that our new, internet-based high-throughput infrastructure would be capable of providing specialised pathology review within 10 working days (w.d.).
Methods:
Patients scheduled for the AGO OVAR17 ovarian carcinoma chemotherapy trial were registered for expert pathologic case review using a new internet-based central pathology review platform prior to randomisation. All original slides were requested from local pathologists. Slides were scanned and uploaded to a secured internet server. A network of experienced gynaecological pathologists was connected to the server through a custom-designed software platform. If deemed necessary by the expert pathologists, immunohistochemistry was available through a collaborating pathology lab.
Results:
A total of 880 patients with an original diagnosis of ovarian epithelial carcinoma were registered for expert pathology review from October 2011 to July 2013. For case review, five gynaecopathologists from Austria, Switzerland and Germany were available online. Median number of w.d. required to complete the whole process from patient registration to transmission of final review diagnoses was 4 (range 2-31) (w.d.), and in 848 out of 880 (97.5%) cases, it amounted to ⩽10 w.d. In 2.5% (n=22) of cases, a major diagnostic discrepancy of potential clinical relevance was found leading to exclusion from the chemotherapy trial.
Conclusions:
Our results show that the use of a new internet-based infrastructure makes timely specialised case review, prior to patient randomisation feasible within ⩽10 w.d. Our new approach helped to protect against overtreatment with chemotherapy of patients with ovarian borderline tumours and inadequate treatment of patients with ovarian metastases, as a result of their inappropriate entry into a clinical trial designed for patients with primary ovarian carcinoma.
