Digital pathology is beginning to demonstrate measurable benefits for cancer diagnosis in Vietnam.
A study published in Modern Pathology in 2025 found that remote specialist consultations using digital pathology reduced average diagnostic turnaround time by approximately 30% compared with traditional local consultations using glass slides.
The research involved Ho Chi Minh City Oncology Hospital and the University of Texas Health-McGovern Medical School in Houston, United States. Over 32 months, the two institutions collaborated on 71 challenging haematopathology cases, achieving a definitive consensus diagnosis in 97% of cases.
These findings offer more than evidence of improved diagnostic efficiency. They also highlight how digital pathology could change the organisation of specialist laboratory services in Vietnam.
Rather than requiring every hospital to maintain its own team of highly specialised pathologists, digital infrastructure can enable expertise to be shared across institutions and geographical locations.
For Vietnam’s healthcare sector, this development raises an important question: Could the future of pathology depend as much on connecting medical expertise as on expanding physical laboratory capacity?
A Vietnam Study Demonstrates the Benefits of Digital Pathology
The study, titled Telepathology in Hematopathology Diagnostics: A Collaboration Between the Ho Chi Minh City Oncology Hospital and the University of Texas Health-McGovern Medical School, was published in Volume 38 of Modern Pathology in August 2025.
Researchers examined a remote consultation programme conducted between May 2022 and December 2024.
The programme focused on haematopathology, the medical specialty concerned with diagnosing diseases affecting blood, bone marrow, lymph nodes and related tissues.
This field requires substantial expertise because many blood cancers and lymphatic disorders share similar microscopic characteristics. An accurate diagnosis may depend on interpreting tissue morphology alongside immunohistochemistry, laboratory results and other clinical information.
Such cases can be particularly challenging when access to subspecialist haematopathologists is limited.
The collaboration addressed this challenge by enabling pathologists in Vietnam to consult remotely with specialists in the United States.
During the study period, 71 cases were submitted for review. Of these, 49 involved requests to confirm an existing diagnosis, while 22 required assistance with a primary diagnosis.
The findings were significant:
- 97% diagnostic consensus: A definitive consensus diagnosis was reached in 69 of 71 cases.
- 30% faster consultations: Average diagnostic turnaround time decreased from approximately seven days to five days.
- Specialist access: Vietnamese pathologists could discuss complex cases with international haematopathology experts without routinely transporting physical slides overseas.
- Professional development: The programme also supported knowledge transfer and continuing education for participating pathologists.
Importantly, the 97% figure measures the proportion of cases reaching a consensus diagnosis. It should not be interpreted as a 97% diagnostic accuracy rate.
Nevertheless, the results demonstrate how remote collaboration can improve the practical delivery of specialist pathology services.
How Digital Pathology Made Remote Consultations Possible
Traditional pathology relies on examining physical glass slides under a microscope.
When a complicated case requires an external specialist opinion, the laboratory may need to transport glass slides or paraffin-embedded tissue blocks to another institution.
This process introduces several logistical challenges.
Specimens must be prepared, packaged, transported, received and reviewed before the findings can be communicated to the referring institution.
For consultations involving international specialists, geographical distance can make this process more complicated.
Digital pathology changes part of that workflow.
Using whole-slide imaging (WSI) technology, laboratories can scan glass slides into high-resolution digital images. These images can then be accessed through specialised software by authorised pathologists working in different locations.
In the Vietnam study, researchers used the VENTANA DP 200 and Olympus VS120 slide scanners to digitise tissue specimens.
The resulting images were uploaded to the PathPresenter platform, allowing the US specialist to examine cases before scheduled online consultation sessions.
Vietnamese and American pathologists then discussed the cases through video conferences, reviewing digital slides alongside available clinical and laboratory information.
When additional testing was necessary, follow-up investigations could be requested.
The system did not eliminate all physical specimen transfers. Certain specialised tests still required tissue blocks to be sent to the United States.
However, routine discussion and review of suitable cases could take place remotely.
The main operational improvement was not simply replacing a microscope with a computer screen. It was reducing the geographical barriers between hospitals and specialist medical expertise.
Why a 30% Reduction in Diagnostic Time Matters
Reducing average diagnostic turnaround time from seven days to five days represents a meaningful improvement for complex pathology consultations.
In oncology, pathology results help clinicians establish the nature of a disease and determine appropriate treatment options.
For haematological malignancies, distinguishing between different disease subtypes can be particularly important because treatment approaches may differ substantially.
Faster access to a specialist opinion could therefore help hospitals make clinical decisions sooner.
There are also operational benefits.
When a pathology consultation is delayed, the delay may affect subsequent clinical discussions, treatment planning and communication with patients.
A more efficient consultation workflow can reduce some of these interruptions.
However, it is important to distinguish between faster diagnosis and improved patient outcomes.
The Vietnam study demonstrated shorter diagnostic turnaround times. It did not establish that digital pathology directly reduced mortality, shortened hospital stays or improved survival rates.
Those outcomes would require further clinical evaluation.
The immediate conclusion is more specific: digital pathology enabled faster specialist consultations within the participating hospitals’ workflow, without requiring specialists to be physically present at the same institution.
For hospital administrators, this is already a relevant operational finding.
Digital Pathology Could Change Vietnam’s Laboratory Business Model
The implications of digital pathology extend beyond individual hospitals.
Traditionally, pathology services have depended heavily on the physical location of laboratories, equipment and qualified specialists.
A hospital requiring advanced diagnostic expertise generally has two options: employ the necessary specialists internally or refer cases to another institution.
Both approaches have limitations.
Recruiting subspecialists requires sufficient patient volume to justify the investment. External referrals can introduce delays, additional costs and administrative complexity.
Digital pathology introduces a third possibility: a connected network of laboratories supported by shared specialist expertise.
One Specialist Centre Could Support Multiple Hospitals
Under a network-based model, participating hospitals would continue performing specimen collection, tissue processing, slide preparation and scanning.
Cases requiring specialist interpretation could then be routed to a central diagnostic centre.
Specialists at that centre could review cases originating from several hospitals, subject to appropriate clinical governance, technical validation and regulatory arrangements.
This would allow participating institutions to access specialist opinions without duplicating every medical specialty at every location.
For larger healthcare groups, a centralised pathology network could also improve resource allocation across multiple facilities.
Instead of treating each pathology department as a separate operating unit, hospitals could progressively establish shared diagnostic capabilities.
The potential advantages include broader access to subspecialty expertise, more consistent consultation processes and improved coordination between institutions.
Expertise Could Become More Important Than Physical Location
Digital pathology could also change how pathology laboratories compete.
In a conventional model, competitive advantage often comes from laboratory location, equipment availability, turnaround time and relationships with referring clinicians.
These factors will remain important.
However, digital connectivity could increase the value of specialist interpretation capabilities.
A laboratory equipped with validated digital infrastructure and access to experienced subspecialists may be able to serve hospitals beyond its immediate geographical market.
This creates opportunities for pathology centres offering advanced second opinions, complex cancer diagnostics and specialist consultation services.
The opportunity is particularly relevant for cases where the required expertise is scarce or cannot be economically maintained at every hospital.
Over time, competitive advantage may increasingly depend on the combination of medical expertise, diagnostic reliability, digital infrastructure and effective case management.
Digital Pathology Also Creates Opportunities for Training
Another important finding from the Vietnam study concerned professional education.
The researchers observed improvements in the participating Vietnamese pathologists’ diagnostic capabilities during the consultation programme.
The proportion of cases submitted for primary diagnosis decreased over the course of the collaboration, although this observation alone does not prove that education was the sole cause.
Nevertheless, the programme demonstrates how remote consultations can also function as structured learning opportunities.
During case reviews, specialists can explain diagnostic reasoning, discuss unusual findings and recommend additional investigations.
Participating pathologists can apply this knowledge to subsequent cases.
For healthcare systems seeking to strengthen specialist capacity, this approach may be valuable because it combines clinical service delivery with professional development.
Digital case archives can provide another educational resource, allowing authorised professionals to revisit previously reviewed cases.
This means digital pathology infrastructure could support three related activities: diagnosis, specialist consultation and continuous medical education.
For laboratory operators, the educational component may help build internal capabilities over time rather than creating permanent dependence on external consultants.
The Investment Requirements Should Not Be Underestimated
Despite these potential benefits, digital pathology is not a low-cost substitute for conventional laboratories.
Implementing a reliable system requires substantial investment in technology, infrastructure and professional expertise.
A laboratory considering digital pathology would need to evaluate several important components.
Slide scanning equipment: High-resolution scanners must produce images suitable for the intended diagnostic applications. Equipment capacity, scanning speed, maintenance and image quality all influence operational performance.
Data storage and management: Digital pathology images can generate large data volumes. Laboratories require systems for secure storage, retrieval, backup and long-term image management.
Network infrastructure: Remote consultations depend on reliable connectivity and systems capable of transferring or displaying high-resolution images efficiently.
Diagnostic validation: Digital viewing systems must be validated for their intended clinical use. The College of American Pathologists recommends structured validation to establish agreement between digital and conventional slide interpretation.
Information security: Patient confidentiality, access controls, audit trails and appropriate data-sharing arrangements are essential, particularly when consultations involve multiple institutions or international specialists.
Specialist personnel: Digital infrastructure does not replace the medical expertise required to interpret complex cases. Qualified pathologists remain responsible for diagnostic evaluation.
These requirements mean that digital pathology changes the investment profile of a laboratory business rather than removing its barriers to entry.
Capital previously concentrated in physical infrastructure may increasingly be accompanied by investment in software, data systems, cybersecurity and specialised workforce development.
The economics will depend on the number and complexity of cases, equipment utilisation, available expertise and the cost of maintaining a reliable service.
Can Digital Pathology Become a Scalable Business in Vietnam?
The Vietnam study demonstrates the operational feasibility of remote specialist consultation, but it does not establish the financial viability of a commercial digital pathology network.
That distinction matters for investors and laboratory operators.
A commercially sustainable model would need sufficient case volume to justify the cost of scanning, image management, specialist interpretation and ongoing technology support.
It would also require clear agreements with referring hospitals covering responsibilities, service quality, turnaround times, fees and diagnostic reporting.
One possible development model would involve a central specialist pathology laboratory serving a network of partner hospitals.
Another would involve established hospital groups integrating their pathology operations through shared digital infrastructure.
Independent laboratory providers could potentially offer specialised second-opinion services or support smaller hospitals without certain subspecialty capabilities.
Each model would involve different capital requirements and operating risks.
A practical approach would be to introduce digital pathology gradually, beginning with selected high-value diagnostic applications where access to specialist expertise is a significant constraint.
Hospitals and laboratories could then evaluate performance through measurable indicators such as:
- Average diagnostic turnaround time.
- Percentage of cases reaching a definitive diagnosis.
- Digital scanning and image rejection rates.
- Number of cases reviewed per specialist.
- Cost per completed consultation.
- Equipment utilisation and specialist capacity.
- Satisfaction among referring clinicians.
These indicators would help determine whether digital pathology delivers sustainable improvements rather than merely adding another layer of technology to existing operations.
What the Study Does—and Does Not—Prove
The findings from Ho Chi Minh City Oncology Hospital are encouraging, but they should be interpreted within the study’s limitations.
The research involved 71 selected cases from a specific haematopathology consultation programme.
It was not a nationwide assessment of Vietnam’s pathology sector, nor was it a large randomised comparison of digital and conventional diagnostic services.
The results therefore cannot automatically be applied to all pathology laboratories or all types of specimens.
The 30% reduction in turnaround time reflected the workflow and consultation arrangements used in this collaboration. Other institutions may experience different results depending on technology, staffing, case complexity and existing processes.
Furthermore, successful remote consultation still depends on high-quality specimen preparation, appropriate supporting tests and reliable specialist interpretation.
Digital pathology also should not be confused with artificial intelligence-based diagnosis.
The Vietnam study primarily examined remote consultation using digitised slides and human medical expertise. It did not demonstrate that an AI system independently diagnosed the cases.
These distinctions are important when assessing the technology’s commercial potential.
Digital pathology is an enabling infrastructure, not an automatic guarantee of faster, cheaper or more accurate diagnosis.
Its value depends on how effectively it is integrated into clinical practice.
The Future of Digital Pathology in Vietnam
The 2025 Modern Pathology study provides an important example of how digital technology can help address practical challenges in specialist medical diagnosis.
By connecting Vietnamese pathologists with international haematopathology experts, the collaboration achieved a high rate of diagnostic consensus while reducing average consultation turnaround time by approximately 30%.
The findings suggest that distance need not be an absolute barrier to accessing advanced pathology expertise.
For hospitals, digital pathology offers an opportunity to improve specialist consultation workflows and strengthen clinical collaboration.
For medical professionals, it creates additional opportunities for training and knowledge exchange.
For laboratory operators and investors, it raises the possibility of developing network-based diagnostic services capable of supporting multiple healthcare institutions.
However, turning these opportunities into a sustainable business requires more than purchasing scanners and installing software.
Organisations must combine reliable technology with qualified medical professionals, appropriate clinical governance, effective data management and sufficient service demand.
The most competitive providers may therefore be those capable of integrating these capabilities into a coordinated diagnostic network.
Vietnam’s experience suggests that the next stage of pathology development may not depend solely on building more laboratories. It may also depend on connecting existing laboratories to the expertise they need.
Digital pathology does not remove the complexity of the diagnostic laboratory business. It changes where investment, operational capability and competitive advantage are concentrated.
For Vietnam’s evolving healthcare sector, that could become a significant long-term development.
References
- Ly, U., et al. (2025). Telepathology in Hematopathology Diagnostics: A Collaboration Between the Ho Chi Minh City Oncology Hospital and the University of Texas Health-McGovern Medical School. Modern Pathology, 38(8), 100779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.modpat.2025.100779
- The Pathologist (2025). Remote Pathology Associated With Faster Turnaround. Read article
- College of American Pathologists. Validating Whole Slide Imaging for Diagnostic Purposes in Pathology. Clinical guideline
- Shean, R. C., & Rets, A. V. (2025, online publication). Digital Pathology in Hematopathology: From Vision to Deployment. International Journal of Laboratory Hematology. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.14533