We often hear that adoption of digital pathology (since, for example, the $100M acquisition of Bioimagene by Roche almost twenty years ago)...is so slow due to microeconomics.
Let's look at another transformation. Robotic surgery aka da Vinci blew into the markets like a tornado. There were four possible drivers -
- Better clinical outcomes
- Better economics (faster-cheaper)
- Urologist preference and excitement
- Hospital-to-hospital market competition
Especially early on, there was little evidence for #1 or #2. That leaves factors #3 and #4.
What are the lessons for digital pathology?!
##
Find the white paper report in the cloud... HERE.
###
On a personal note, I dictated the prompt for this report in an Uber and it was ready a few minutes later when I got out.
Dictated.. Use a agentic research skills and write a detailed white paper style report about the adoption of da Vinci robotic surgery in the United States. I believe we can take for granted that prostate was the index application. Why? How much was adoption driven by clinical superiority or efficiency and speed versus either the surgeons interest in using the most advanced technology and enjoying it, like being an airplane pilot, or the competitive need for hospitals to install state-of-the-art robotic surgery to compete with other hospitals. I believe there is minimal economic or outcome data for the first years, but it option was rapid, so it was being driven by other factors, such as hospital hospital, competition or neurologic surgeons, wanting to be on a fascinating and exciting cutting edge of technology. After reviewing the data and summarizing your findings, compared to the adoption of digital pathology, which also has relatively little clinical outcome or economic data, but if it was done correctly, I have a hypothesis pathologists would love it.
