Fluorescent whole slide scanning is a growing area that has lagged several years behind brightfield scanning. The purchase of a scanner should not be taking lightly, and regardless of which hardware vendor is chosen, one should not underestimate the time involved in the production of high quality fluorescent whole slide images.
We undertook an extensive evaluation of all fluorescent scanning technologies on the market. Below is a comparison between brightfield and fluorescent scanning:
| Whole Slide Scanner | Brightfield | Fluorescence |
| Throughput | 10 slides per hour (20x) 5 slides per hour (40x) |
2-3 slides per hour (20x) 40x is not feasible as a service |
| Redo rate | 5% of slides | 20% of slides |
| Technician training level | Low, easily learned | High, requires understanding of histopathology to determine autofluorescence, exposure settings, correct focus, etc. |
| Client interaction | Low | Very high, requires iteration and discussion to determine best scanning settings |
There are three main fluorescent slide scanning choices on the market today (as of January 2011). Leica is promising a new fluorescent scanner, but our evaluation only includes products on the market.
3dHistech Pannoramic (Distributed by Caliper in US)
Nanozoomer (Distributed by Olympus in US)