Table 1.
Participant characteristics by Phase I and II interpretive formata
| Participant Characteristics | Study phase | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase I | Phase II | |||
| Glass, n (%) | Digital, n (%) | Glass, n (%) | Digital, n (%) | |
| Total | 115 (55) | 93 (45) | 86 (50) | 86 (50) |
| Demographics | ||||
| Age at survey (years) | ||||
| 30-39 | 16 (14) | 12 (13) | 12 (14) | 11 (13) |
| 40-49 | 41 (36) | 29 (31) | 30 (35) | 26 (30) |
| 50-59 | 42 (37) | 32 (34) | 29 (34) | 35 (41) |
| 60+ | 16 (14) | 20 (22) | 15 (17) | 14 (16) |
| Sex | ||||
| Men | 69 (60) | 63 (68) | 54 (63) | 56 (65) |
| Women | 46 (40) | 30 (32) | 32 (37) | 30 (35) |
| Clinical practice and breast pathology expertise | ||||
| Fellowship training in breast pathology | ||||
| No | 109 (95) | 88 (95) | 82 (95) | 82 (95) |
| Yes | 6 (5) | 5 (5) | 4 (5) | 4 (5) |
| Affiliation with academic medical center | ||||
| No | 87 (76) | 66 (71) | 55 (64) | 67 (78) |
| Yes, adjunct/affiliated | 17 (15) | 18 (19) | 20 (23) | 12 (14) |
| Yes, primary appointment | 11 (10) | 9 (10) | 11 (13) | 7 (8) |
| Do your colleagues consider you an expert in breast pathology? | ||||
| No | 90 (78) | 74 (80) | 67 (78) | 69 (80) |
| Yes | 25 (22) | 19 (20) | 19 (22) | 17 (20) |
| Breast specimen case load (percentage of total clinical work) | ||||
| <10 | 59 (51) | 45 (48) | 44 (51) | 41 (48) |
| 10-24 | 45 (39) | 42 (45) | 35 (41) | 38 (44) |
| 25-49 | 8 (7) | 5 (5) | 5 (6) | 5 (6) |
| ≥50 | 3 (3) | 1 (1) | 2 (2) | 2 (2) |
| How confident are you interpreting breast pathology?b | ||||
| More confident (1, 2 or 3) | 107 (93) | 86 (92) | 81 (94) | 76 (88) |
| Less confident (4, 5, 6) | 8 (7) | 7 (8) | 5 (6) | 10 (12) |
| Do you have any experience using digitized whole slides in your professional work?c | ||||
| No | 63 (55) | 46 (49) | 38 (44) | 46 (53) |
| Yes | 52 (45) | 47 (51) | 48 (56) | 40 (47) |
aWithin each phase, P values for differences by format were nonsignificant for all characteristics listed. P values correspond to Pearson Chi-square test for difference in distributions of each pathologist characteristic between glass and digital formats within each study phase. A Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test was used for factors with ordered categories, bConfidence was reported on a 6-point Likert Scale from 1: “High confidence” to 6: “Not confident at all.” Responses were combined into a binary variable for analysis with 1, 2, and 3 confident and 4, 5, and 6 not confident, cPathologists were asked, “In what ways do you use digitized whole slides in your professional work?” Pathologists were deemed to have experience in digital pathology if they reported any answer other than “Not at all.” The full list of possible answers included: Primary pathology diagnosis; tumor board/clinical conference; consultative diagnosis; CME/Board exams/teaching in general; archival purposes; research; other (text box provided); not at all. CME: Continuing Medical Education