By Sina Rezvan
Many labs evaluating a new digital pathology IMS start from the same place: We already have one. Slides load. Cases are reviewed. Reports go out. On the surface, it works.
The real question isn’t whether your current system functions — it’s whether it scales. As case volume increases, sites expand, AI enters the workflow, or turnaround time expectations tighten, basic image viewing often becomes a bottleneck. Routing remains manual. Productivity gains plateau. Costs rise linearly with hiring instead of infrastructure. What felt sufficient at 20,000 cases per year may feel constrained at 60,000.
An IMS should not simply digitize slides — it should orchestrate workflow, improve throughput, and support AI integration without forcing replatforming in three years. The difference between “functional” and “future-ready” becomes visible only under growth pressure.
For a deeper breakdown of what growing labs should prioritize when evaluating a digital pathology IMS, read the full guide: How To Evaluate a Digital Pathology IMS: The Criteria That Matters Most.
