Month: October 2025

Hologic to Go Private in $18.3B Buyout

Posted on by Brian Casey

Women’s imaging vendor Hologic will go private in an $18.3B buyout led by two private equity firms, Blackstone and TPG. The move is easily the largest acquisition in radiology this year – the question is how it will impact one of the biggest corporate success stories in women’s health. 

Hologic has a long history in medical imaging and was founded in 1985 to develop and market bone densitometry systems. It soon expanded into mammography, molecular diagnostics, and women’s health treatments.

  • The company went public in 1990, and has maintained its independence even as radiology underwent a period of consolidation in the 1990s and 2000s that saw most mid-cap firms get acquired by multinational OEMs.

Much of Hologic’s momentum was driven by the conversion of U.S. mammography facilities from standard 2D mammography to 3D digital breast tomosynthesis. 

  • This shift was led by Hologic’s Selenia Dimensions system, which in 2011 was the first DBT system to get FDA approval. Hologic rode its momentum to a U.S. mammography installed base market share approaching 70%. (Signify Research estimates Hologic currently has a 34% market share of the global mammography market.)

But as often happens to many market leaders, Hologic’s position began slipping in recent years. 

  • The multinational OEMs have improved their positions in women’s imaging, releasing DBT systems that are more competitive with Hologic’s offerings while also benefiting from multiyear purchasing agreements with large health systems in which mammography systems can be bundled with CT, MRI, and other equipment. 

Perhaps as a result, Hologic’s Breast Health segment has become a drag on revenue growth due to lower equipment sales. Breast Health revenues for the most recent Q3 period fell 5.8%, following a 6.9% drop in Q2 and a 2.1% decline in Q1. 

  • Indeed, reports began surfacing in May 2025 that Blackstone and TPG were targeting Hologic for acquisition, with Hologic reportedly rejecting a $16.7B offer. 

The bid was apparently sweetened, with an acquisition price of $79 a share, a 46% premium from before the acquisition rumors started, for a total value of $18.3B. The buyout should close in the first half of calendar 2026.

The Takeaway

Hologic built itself into a radiology success story through a combination of technological innovation and an obsessive focus on a single market segment – women’s health. The question is whether that focus will continue under its new PE-led ownership.

Cancer Screening Rates Vary Geographically

Posted on by Brian Casey

Progress has been made in some U.S. regions in boosting adherence rates for cancer screening exams like mammography, but clusters of regional variation remain. That’s according to a new study in JAMA Network Open that offers hope for reducing access disparities in disadvantaged areas.

Disparities in healthcare access remain one of the nagging problems in the U.S. healthcare system. 

  • Previous studies have shown that racial background, socioeconomic status, and geographic location can all affect access to care, and ultimately, patient outcomes.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in cancer screening, where getting patients in for their exams has always been a challenge. 

  • Screening compliance rates (as of 2021) were approximately 76% for breast cancer, 75% for cervical cancer, and 72% for colorectal cancer. 

But how does geography affect screening rates, and has progress been made over time? 

  • To answer these questions, researchers analyzed geographic variations in rates for the three major cancer screening tests (breast, cervical, and colorectal) over a 22-year period. 

Screening data were analyzed at the county level from 1997 to 2019, with screening prevalence estimated over 3-5-year periods. For mammography screening, authors found…

  • Screening rates were highest in the Northeast (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts).
  • Rates were lowest in the Southwest (Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona).
  • Geographic areas that shifted from low to high uptake had lower socioeconomic status and more non-White residents, suggesting the success of efforts to improve screening in disadvantaged areas. 
  • Counties that did not improve had lower socioeconomic status than counties that maintained high screening rates. 
  • Rural areas had persistently low screening rates, reflecting lack of access to facilities as well as transportation. 

The Takeaway

The new study on geographic variation in cancer screening rates offers encouraging news that – at least in some disadvantaged areas – improving screening uptake is possible. But more research is needed to find out why some areas fail to see improvement. 

Doubling Lung Screening Rates with Patient Outreach

Posted on by Brian Casey

Low CT lung cancer screening rates have disappointed medical imaging professionals and public health advocates alike since the test received USPSTF recommendation over 10 years ago. But a new study shows how one health system doubled its lung cancer screening rates – to levels approaching those of more established cancer screening exams. 

USPSTF recommended low-dose CT lung cancer screening in 2013, but 10 years later patient screening rates languished in the mid-teens, compared to rates of around 75% for breast and cervical cancer and above 72% for colorectal cancer. 

  • That means many lung cancer patients are showing up with late-stage disease, when it’s more difficult to cure. Perhaps as a result, lung cancer is expected to cause almost 125k deaths in the U.S. in 2025.

Breaking that cycle was the goal of researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, who wrote about their experiences in a study published in NEJM Catalyst. 

  • They wanted to boost lung cancer screening adherence across their network of 42 locations in western New York. 

So how did they do it? Success came through a combination of IT innovation and old-fashioned legwork in patient outreach. Clinicians…

  • Provided evidence on lung cancer screening to primary care providers.
  • Updated their EHR software to identify patients eligible for lung screening based on the daily schedule to provide screening prompts during patient visits.
  • Created dashboards to guide outreach to patients due or overdue for screening exams.
  • Developed an extensive follow-up program with patient navigators to facilitate recall for annual exams.
  • Created a centralized pulmonary team to provide referrals for smoking cessation, conduct shared decision making for screening exams, and manage pulmonary nodules.

The program produced immediate results. In an analysis comparing screening rates in March 2022 to June 2025, researchers found…

  • Lung screening rates doubled (from 33% to 72%).
  • On-time completion of annual LDCT screening exceeded 94%.
  • 78% of lung cancer cases in 2023 and 2024 were diagnosed at an early stage.
  • There were no statistically significant differences in screening rates by patient race.

The Takeaway
The new results match up with recent findings – such as those presented at WCLC 2025 in September – underscoring the importance of reaching out to potential lung cancer screening candidates to bring them into the fold. Despite CT lung screening’s halting history, these studies show that it can be done.

AI First Drafts: A New Dawn for Radiology Reporting

Posted on by Partner Content

For radiologists – the medical detectives who find clues in our medical images – the daily grind can feel like a “death by a thousand cuts.” Much of their time is spent not on diagnosis, but on tedious reporting. 

Now, a new generation of artificial intelligence is stepping in to serve as a high-tech scribe, automating the drudgery.

  • This AI tackles reporting, the most time-consuming part of radiologists’ workflow.

AI-enabled radiology reporting makes transcribing data from technologist worksheets a thing of the past, using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) to decipher everything, even what looks like “chicken scratch handwriting.” Then…

  • A large language model (LLM) applies clinical context to ensure it understands the meaning.
  • It intelligently injects that data into the correct sections of the radiologist’s personal report template.
  • Finally, it performs its own “inference,” like calculating a TI-RADS score and dropping it right into the impression.

Modern AI also learns from a radiologist’s actions, providing a hands-free way to build a report, with features such as…

Smart Measurements: When a lesion is measured, the AI recognizes the location and automatically adds the data and comparisons to prior scans into the report.

Automated Prior Population: Instead of struggling with speech-to-text, the AI notices when a prior study is opened for comparison and automatically populates that exam’s date.

Streamlined Expert Findings: A radiologist can simply state positive findings, and the AI acts as both writer and editor. 

AI-enabled radiology reporting weaves dictated phrases into complete sentences, generates an impression based on clinical guidelines like BI-RADS, and serves as a vigilant proofreader, flagging errors like laterality mistakes or semantic impossibilities. 

As AI technology matures, the software itself is becoming easier to build. The true differentiator is the team behind it. 

  • For radiologists evaluating these new reporting tools, it’s critical to look for teams that are “AI native” – built from the ground up with AI at their core. 

Companies founded on these principles, such as New Lantern, are pioneering these all-in-one radiology reporting solutions, treating the challenge not as a problem to be fixed with another widget, but as an opportunity to build one complete, intelligent platform. 

The Takeaway 

The evolution in AI-enabled radiology reporting isn’t about replacing radiologists; it’s a tool to augment their skills. Radiologists who harness AI to create reports faster will significantly outpace those who do not, allowing them to return their full focus to the art of diagnosis.

Uneven Access to Brain MRI

Posted on by Brian Casey

Patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods or those traveling farther for brain MRI scans presented in worse clinical condition than patients with better access. That’s according to a new JACR study that reopens the debate over disparities in healthcare access. 

The past several years have seen numerous studies published that document disparities in healthcare access and their impact on clinical outcomes.

Many previous studies have also concentrated on access to care in rural areas, in which long distances make it harder for patients to travel to medical centers.

  • In the current study, researchers led by authors from Emory University flipped the script to examine care access in the Atlanta metropolitan area in an effort to quantify how distance and socioeconomic status might impact patient care. 

They examined the demographic backgrounds of 4.8k patients who got brain MRI scans over a one-year period starting in March 2019, calculating factors like distance from home to imaging facility and socioeconomic status based on the area deprivation index. 

  • They then correlated these data to patient illness severity – also known as acuity – when they presented for their scans, using a three-point scale ranging from normal (level 1) to findings requiring a change in patient management (level 3).

Based on the data, researchers found…

  • Patients in neighborhoods with lower socioeconomic status had 34% higher odds of level 2 acuity versus level 1 for inpatient scans and 27% higher for emergency scans. 
  • Patients living twice the distance from an imaging facility had 6.5% higher odds of level 2 acuity compared to level 1, and 15% higher for level 3.
  • Other factors affecting acuity level included age, race, and insurance status.
  • Medicaid recipients in particular were sicker, with 68% higher odds of acuity level 2 and 81% higher odds of acuity level 3 compared to those with commercial insurance. 

The findings track with other studies that have linked chronic health conditions with brain pathologies, such as the connection between diabetes and stroke. 

The Takeaway

The new findings offer additional details on how patient demographics affect both their health status and their access to care, in particular for advanced imaging scans like brain MRI. Follow-up studies could examine whether a similar phenomenon occurs with CT, which is the workhorse modality for emergency imaging. 

Reducing CT Radiation Dose System-Wide

Posted on by Brian Casey

CT radiation dose has been one of the top radiology headlines this year due to the publication of several studies linking radiation to cancer risk. But new research offers hope that CT radiation dose can be reduced, even across large healthcare systems. 

CT’s link to cancer risk has been controversial, but most established models connect low-level radiation to cancer formation.

There are lots of great technologies for reducing CT radiation dose, from photon-counting CT to adjusting scanner parameters like mA and kVp, while image reconstruction algorithms can upscale noisy low-dose images to look like higher-quality exams.

  • But the problem has always been getting these technologies into the hands of clinicians – and then making sure they use them, especially across large multi-center health systems, where dose can vary even within the same network.  

Taking a crack at the problem were cardiologists from Lee Health Heart Institute in Fort Myers, Florida, in a new paper in JACC: Case Reports. 

  • They specifically looked at radiation dose for coronary CT angiography exams, determining that based on the literature an optimal radiation dose for CCTA should be ≤ 4 mSv – lower than the system’s 6.2 mSv median dose. 

So they implemented several strategies for reducing CCTA dose…

  • Standardizing scanning protocols that emphasized prospective ECG gating, reduced field of view, BMI-tailored tube voltage (kVp), and elimination of redundant imaging phases.
  • Setting parameters for single-source CT at 100 kVp for patients with BMI <30 and 120 kVp for BMI ≥30, with prospective scanning for 60-80% of the cardiac cycle.
  • Using similar kVp settings for dual-source CT scanners, but implementing systolic imaging between 250-450 milliseconds.

How well did it work? After reviewing the program, researchers found…

  • System-wide radiation dose fell 23% (4.8 vs. 6.2 mSv).
  • Diagnostic quality improved as measured by the acceptance rate for FFR-CT exams (93% vs. 91%). 
  • Dose consistency was achieved across locations despite differences in scanner models and practices.

The Takeaway

The new study on CCTA radiation dose shows that dose can be reduced system-wide while maintaining – and even improving – diagnostic image quality. Is it a problem that the research was led by cardiologists and not radiologists? Not if you’re a patient. 

Perils of Missed Mammography

Posted on by Brian Casey

Yet another study is illustrating the perils of missing mammography screening. New research in JAMA Network Open found that women diagnosed with breast cancer who missed their previous screening exam had signs of delayed diagnosis and worse clinical outcomes. 

Mammography screening is generally credited – along with improved treatments – with a steady decline in breast cancer death rates since the start of population-based breast screening.

  • But most studies on mammography’s effectiveness tend to compare women who participated regularly in screening with those who never did. 

That’s not really a realistic comparison these days, as mammography’s relatively high compliance rate means that most women are getting screened at least some of the time.

  • But what happens if women miss a screening exam? In a BMJ study published last month, researchers found that women who missed their first screening exam had a 40% higher risk of breast cancer death.

In the current study, researchers took a slightly different tack, looking at 8.6k women in Sweden whose breast cancer was detected on screening exams starting in 2015. 

  • In all, 17% of women missed the screening exam immediately before their cancer diagnosis. 

Compared to women who attended all screening rounds, those who missed their previous exam had higher adjusted odds ratio for…

  • Larger tumors ≥ 20 mm (AOR = 1.55).
  • Lymph node involvement (AOR = 1.28).
  • Distant metastasis (AOR = 4.64).
  • Worse breast cancer-specific survival (AOR = 1.33).
  • Lower 20-year breast cancer-specific survival (86% vs. 89%). 

What’s more, the program’s cancer detection rate per 1k screenings was sharply higher in the second screening round for women who missed the first round (7.35 vs. 5.59). 

  • This is most likely a sign that cancers that could have been detected in the first round instead were detected in the second round – another sign of delayed diagnosis.

Women who had missed their previous screening tended to be younger, unemployed, unmarried, and born outside of Sweden, and also had lower income. 

  • Women with these characteristics could be targeted for more intensive outreach, such as shorter invitation intervals or outreach after a missed appointment. 

The Takeaway

The new study once again highlights the importance of regular mammography screening in detecting breast cancer. Even one missed exam can have serious clinical consequences – highlighting the importance of identifying and contacting women who might be more prone to missed appointments.

Emergency CT Use Booms

Posted on by Brian Casey

Increased use of CT drove a boom in medical imaging utilization in the emergency department setting over the past 10 years. That’s according to a new study in Radiology that comes amid increased scrutiny over the long-term health effects of CT radiation. 

CT is tailor-made for evaluating patients in the emergency setting. It’s fast, relatively inexpensive, and provides high-quality images that can deliver a diagnosis quickly.

  • For these reasons, emergency departments have been quick to install workhorse CT scanners running at all hours in the hope that faster diagnoses will lead to better patient outcomes. 

But there are also downsides to the growth in CT utilization. It can put strains on radiology departments to read all the new scans – a particular challenge in an era of workforce shortages.

  • Concerns about the link between CT radiation dose and cancer also persist. Two controversial studies were published this year on the subject, one linking CT to future cancers across the U.S. population and the other specifically to pediatric blood cancer. 

The new study offers a useful benchmark for tracking CT’s growth in the ED. Researchers chronicled changes in U.S. emergency imaging use in Medicare from 2013 to 2023, finding that per 100 Medicare beneficiaries…

  • CT use grew 96% (37 vs. 19 encounters).
  • While ultrasound only grew 20% (2.8 vs. 2.3 encounters).
  • And radiography use remained flat at 37 encounters in both years.

In addition, the number of overall ED encounters actually declined 16% (55 vs. 65 encounters), showing that imaging’s growth was due to more imaging per ED encounter rather than overall increased ED visits by beneficiaries. 

  • On a per-encounter basis, CT use grew 134% over the study period compared to 43% for ultrasound and 19% for radiography. 

Researchers believe that the difference in modality growth rates could be due to the use of CT to accelerate patient turnover in the ED.

  • Meanwhile, ultrasound use may have grown more modestly due to the proliferation of point-of-care handheld scanners among non-radiologists.

The Takeaway

The new findings underscore the conundrum behind emergency CT – it’s an incredibly powerful technology that nevertheless requires restraint in order to be used judiciously. Let’s hope emergency physicians take note.

Get every issue of The Imaging Wire, delivered right to your inbox.