In past issues of The Imaging Wire, we’ve discussed some of the challenges to prostate cancer screening that have limited its wider adoption. But researchers continue to develop new tools for prostate imaging – particularly with MRI – that could flip the script.
Three new studies were published in just the last week focusing on prostate MRI, two involving AI image analysis.
In a new study in The Lancet Oncology, researchers presented results from AI algorithms developed for the Prostate Imaging—Cancer Artificial Intelligence (PI-CAI) Challenge.
PI-CAI pitted teams from around the world in a competition to develop the best prostate AI algorithms, with results presented at recent RSNA and ECR conferences.
Researchers measured the ensemble performance of top-performing PI-CAI algorithms for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer against 62 radiologists who used the PI-RADS system in a population of 400 cases, finding that AI …
Had performance superior to radiologists (AUROC=0.91 vs. 0.86)
Generated 50% fewer false-positive results
Detected 20% fewer low-grade cases
Broader use of prostate AI could reduce inter-reader variability and need for experienced radiologists to diagnose prostate cancer.
In the next study, in the Journal of Urology, researchers tested Avenda Health’s Unfold AI cancer mapping algorithm to measure the extent of tumors by analyzing their margins on MRI scans, finding that compared to physicians, AI …
Had higher accuracy for defining tumor margins compared to two manual methods (85% vs. 67% and 76%)
Reduced underestimations of cancer extent with a significantly higher negative margin rate (73% vs. 1.6%)
AI wasn’t used in the final study, but this one could be the most important of the three due to its potential economic impact on prostate MRI.
Canadian researchers in Radiologytested a biparametric prostate MRI protocol that avoids the use of gadolinium contrast against multiparametric contrast-based MRI for guiding prostate biopsy.
They compared the protocols in 1.5k patients with prostate lesions undergoing biopsy, finding…
No statistically significant difference in PPV between bpMRI and mpMRI for all prostate cancer (55% vs. 56%, p=0.61)
No difference for clinically significant prostate cancer (34% vs. 34%, p=0.97).
They concluded that bpMRI offers lower costs and could improve access to prostate MRI by making the scans easier to perform.
The Takeaway
The advances in AI and MRI protocols shown in the new studies could easily be applied to prostate cancer screening, making it more economical, accessible, and clinically effective.
SNMMI 2024 wrapped up this week in Toronto, Canada, with the conference once again demonstrating the utility of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging for applications ranging from neurology to oncology to therapeutics.
An annual SNMMI highlight is always the Image of the Year designation, and this year’s meeting didn’t disappoint.
The honor went to a set of ultra-high-resolution brain PET images acquired with United Imaging’s NeuroEXPLORER (NX) scanner, a PET/CT system that the company developed with Yale and UC Davis and introduced last year for research use (although a clinical introduction could be forthcoming).
The NX system sports a cylindrical design with a 52.4cm diameter and long axial field-of-view of 49.5cm; in the talk presented at SNMMI, researchers compared it to high-resolution research tomograph images with tracers targeting different dopamine receptors and transporters.
Researchers said the NX system had “exceptional” resolution in cortex and subcortical structures, with “low noise and exquisite resolution,” and predicted NX would “dramatically expand the scope of brain PET studies.”
Other important presentations at SNMMI included papers finding …
An AI algorithm developed at Johns Hopkins detected six different types of cancer and automatically quantified tumor burden on whole-body PET/CT scans
In a study of 10.5k patients, AI that analyzed SPECT/CT images was able to predict all-cause mortality with an AUC of 0.77 by using CT attenuation correction scans to calculate risk factors like coronary artery calcium
An ultra-low-dose PET protocol presented by researchers from Bern University Hospital in Switzerland and Siemens Healthineers used deep learning reconstruction for a 50X reduction in PET radiation dose, to 0.15 mSv
A new chelating agent that binds radiometals to the parts of molecules that target cancer reduced off-target toxicity in PSMA radiopharmaceutical therapy
A combination of alpha- and beta-radionuclide therapy that combined actinium-225 with lutetium-177 worked well for colorectal cancer in a preclinical study
Research sponsored by Novartis on radioligand therapy for prostate cancer with lutetium-177 PSMA-617 (Pluvicto) was chosen as Abstract of the Year
The Takeaway
This year’s SNMMI presentations highlight the exciting advances taking place in nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, with the rise of theranostics giving the field an entirely new wrinkle that places it even closer to the center of precision medicine. Perhaps a new letter – T – will need to be added to the conference before too long.
Echocardiography is a pillar of cardiac imaging, but it is operator-dependent and time-consuming to perform. In this interview, The Imaging Wire spoke with Seth Koeppel, Head of Business Development, and José Rivero, MD, RCS, of echo AI developer Us2.ai about how the company’s new V2 software moves the field toward fully automated echocardiography.
The Imaging Wire: Can you give a little bit of background about Us2.ai and its solutions for automated echocardiography?
Seth Koeppel: Us2.ai is a company that originated in Singapore. The first version of the software (Us2.V1) received its FDA clearance a little over two years ago for an AI algorithm that automates the analysis and reporting on echocardiograms of 23 key measurements for the evaluation of diastolic and systolic function.
In April 2024 we received an expanded regulatory clearance for more measurements – now a total of 45 measurements are cleared. When including derived measurements, based on those core 45 measurements, now up to almost 60 measurements are fully validated and automated, and with that Us2.V2 is bordering on full automation for echocardiography.
The application is vendor-agnostic – we basically can ingest any DICOM image and in two to three minutes produce a full report and analysis.
The software replicates what the expert human does during the traditional 45-60 minutes of image acquisition and annotation in echocardiography. Typically, echocardiography involves acquiring images and video at 40 to 60 frames per second, resulting in some cases up to 100 individual images from a two- or three-second loop.
The human expert then scrolls through these images to identify the best end-diastolic and end-systolic frames, manually annotating and measuring them, which is time-consuming and requires hundreds of mouse clicks. This process is very operator-dependent and manual.
And so the advantage the AI has is that it will do all of that in a fraction of the time, it will annotate every image of every frame, producing more data, and it does it with zero variability.
The Imaging Wire: AI is being developed for a lot of different medical imaging applications, but it seems like it’s particularly important for echocardiography. Why would you say that is?
José Rivero: It’s well known that healthcare institutions and providers are dealing with a larger number of patients and more complex cases. Echo is basically a pillar of cardiac imaging and really touches every patient throughout the path of care. We bring efficiency to the workflow and clinical support for diagnosis and treatment and follow-ups, directly contributing to enhanced patient care.
Additionally, the variability is a huge challenge in echo, as it is operator-dependent. Much of what we see in echo is subjective, certain patient populations require follow-up imaging, and for such longitudinal follow-up exams you want to remove the inter-operator variability as much as possible.
Seth Koeppel: Echo is ripe for disruption. We are faced with a huge shortage of cardiac sonographers. If you simply go on Indeed.com and you type in “cardiac sonographer,” there’s over 4,000 positions open today in the US. Most of those have somewhere between a $10,000, $15,000, up to $20,000 signing bonus. It is an acute problem.
We’re very quickly approaching a situation where we’re running huge backlogs – months in some situations – to get just a baseline echo. The gold standard for diagnosis is an echocardiogram. And if you can’t perform them, you have patients who are going by the wayside.
In our current system today, the average tech will do about eight echoes a day. An echo takes 45 to 60 minutes, because it’s so manual and it relies on expert humans. For the past 35 years echo has looked the same, there has been no innovation, other than image quality has gotten better, but at same time more parameters were added, resulting in more things to analyze in that same 45 or 60 minutes.
This is the first time that we can think about doing echo in less than 45 to 60 minutes, which is a huge enhancement in throughput because it addresses both that shortage of cardiac sonographers and the increasing demand for echo exams.
It also represents a huge benefit to sonographers, who often suffer repetitive stress injuries due to the poor ergonomics of echo, holding the probe tightly pressed against the patient’s chest in one hand, and the other hand on the cart scrolling/clicking/measuring, etc., which results in a high incidence of repetitive stress injuries to neck, shoulder, wrists, etc.
Studies have shown that 20-30% of techs leave the field due to work-related injury. If the AI can take on the role of making the majority of the measurements, in essence turning the sonographer into more of an “editor” than a “doer,” it has the potential to significantly reduce injury.
Interestingly, we saw many facilities move to “off-cart” measurements during COVID to reduce the time the tech was exposed to the patient, and many realized the benefits and maintained this workflow, which we also see in pediatrics, as kids have a hard time lying on the table for 45 minutes.
So with the introduction of AI in the echo workflow, the technicians acquire the images in 15/20 minutes and, in real-time, the images processed via the AI software are all automatically labeled, annotated, and measured. Within 2-3 minutes, a full report is available for the tech to review, adjust (our measures are fully editable) and confirm, and sign off on the report.
You can immediately see the benefits of reducing the time the tech has the probe in their hand and the patient spends on the table, and the tech then gets to sit at an ergonomically correct workstation (proper keyboard, mouse, large monitors, chair, etc.) and do their reporting versus on-cart, which is where the injuries occur.
It’s a worldwide shortage, it’s not just here in the US, we see this in other parts of the world, waitlist times to get an echo could be eight, 10, 12, or more months, which is just not acceptable.
The OPERA study in the UK demonstrated that the introduction of AI echo can tackle this issue. In Glasgow, the wait time for an echo was reduced from 12 months to under six weeks.
The Imaging Wire: You just received clearance for V2, but your V1 has been in the clinical field for some time already. Can you tell us more about the feedback on the use of V1 by your customers.
José Rivero: Clinically, the focus of V1 was heart failure and pulmonary hypertension. This is a critical step, because with AI, we could rapidly identify patients with heart failure or pulmonary hypertension.
One big step that has been taken by having the AI hand-in-hand with the mobile device is that you are taking echocardiography out of the hospital. So you can just go everywhere with this technology.
We demonstrated the feasibility of new clinical pathways using AI echo out of the hospital, in clinics or primary care settings, including novice screening1, 2 (no previous experience in echocardiography but supported by point-of-care ultrasound including AI guidance and Us2.ai analysis and reporting).
Seth Koeppel: We’re addressing the efficiency problem. Most people are pegging the time savings for the tech on the overall echo somewhere around 15 to 20 minutes, which is significant. In a recent study done in Japan using the Us2.ai software by a cardiologist published in the Journal of Echocardiography, they had a 70% reduction in overall time for analysis and reporting.3
The Imaging Wire: Let’s talk about version 2 of the software. When you started working on V2, what were some of the issues that you wanted to address with that?
Seth Koeppel: Version 1, version 2, it’s never changed for us, it’s about full automation of all echo. We aim to automate all the time-consuming and repetitive tasks the human has to do – image labeling and annotation, the clicks, measurements, and the analysis required.
Our medical affairs team works closely with the AI team and the feedback from our users to set the roadmap for the development of our software, prioritizing developments to meet clinical needs and expectations. In V2, we are now covering valve measurements and further enhancing our performance on HFpEF, as demonstrated now in comparison to the gold standard, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP)4.
A new version is really about collaborating with leading institutions and researchers, acquiring excellent datasets for training the models until they reach a level of performance producing robust results we can all be confident in. Beyond the software development and training, we also engage in validation studies to further confirm the scientific efficiency of these models.
With V2 we’re also moving now into introducing different protocols, for example, contrast-enhanced imaging, which in the US is significant. We see in some clinics upwards of 50% to 60% use of contrast-enhanced imaging, where we don’t see that in other parts of the world. Our software is now validated for use with ultrasound-enhancing agents, and the measures correlate well.
Stress echo is another big application in echocardiography. So we’ve added that into the package now, and we’re starting to get into disease detection or disease prediction.
As well as for cardiac amyloidosis (CA), V2 is aligned with guidelines-based measurements for identification of CA in patients, reporting such measurements when found, along with the actual guideline recommendations to support the identification of such conditions which could otherwise be missed
José Rivero: We are at a point where we are now able to really go into more depth into the clinical environment, going into the echo lab itself, to where everything is done and where the higher volumes are. Before we had 23 measurements, now we are up to 45.
And again, that can be even a screening tool. If we start thinking about even subdividing things that we do in echocardiography with AI, again, this is expanding to the mobile environment. So there’s a lot of different disease-based assessments that we do. We are now a more complete AI echocardiography assessment tool.
The Imaging Wire: Clinical guidelines are so important in cardiac imaging and in echocardiography. Us2.ai integrates and refers to guideline recommendations in its reporting. Can you talk about the importance of that, and how you incorporate this in the software?
José Rivero: Clinical guidelines play a crucial role in imaging for supporting standardized, evidence-based practice, as well as minimizing risks and improving quality for the diagnosis and treatment of patients. These are issued by experts, and adherence to guidelines is an important topic for quality of care and GDMT (guideline-directed medical therapies).
We are a scientifically driven company, so we recognize that international guidelines and recommendations are of utmost importance; hence, the guidelines indications are systematically visible and discrepant values found in measurements clearly highlighted.
Seth Koeppel: The beautiful thing about AI in echo is that echo is so structured that it just lends itself so perfectly to AI. If we can automate the measurements, and then we can run them through all the complicated matrices of guidelines, it’s just full automation, right? It’s the ability to produce a full echo report without any human intervention required, and to do it in a fraction of the time with zero variability and in full consideration for international recommendations.
José Rivero: This is another level of support we provide, the sonographer only has to focus on the image acquisition, the cardiologist doing the overreading and checking the data will have these references brought up to his/her attention
With echo you need to include every point in the workflow for the sonographer to really focus on image acquisition and the cardiologist to do the overreading and checking the data. But in the end, those two come together when the cardiologist and the sonographers realize that there’s efficiency on both ends.
The Imaging Wire: V2 has only been out for a short time now but has there been research published on use of V2 in the field and what are clinicians finding?
Seth Koeppel: In V1, our software included a section labeled “investigational,” and some AI measurements were accessible for research purposes only as they had not yet received FDA clearance.
Opening access to these as investigational-research-only has enabled the users to test these out and confirm performance of the AI measurements in independently led publications and abstracts. This is why you are already seeing these studies out … and it is wonderful to see the interest of the users to publish on AI echo, a “trust and verify” approach.
With V2 and the FDA clearance, these measurements, our new features and functionalities, are available for clinical use.
The Imaging Wire: What about the economics of echo AI?
Seth Koeppel: Reimbursement is still front and center in echo and people don’t realize how robust it is, partially due to it being so manual and time consuming. Hospital echo still reimburses nearly $500 under HOPPS (Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System). Where compared to a CT today you might get $140 global, MRI $300-$350, an echo still pays $500.
When you think about the dynamic, it still relies on an expert human that makes typically $100,000 plus a year with benefits or more. And it takes 45 to 60 minutes. So the economics are such that the reimbursement is held very high.
But imagine if you can do incrementally two or three more echoes per day with the assistance of AI, you can immediately see the ROI for this. If you can simply do two incremental echoes a day, and there’s 254 days in a working year, that’s an incremental 500 echoes.
If there’s 2,080 hours in a year, and we average about an echo every hour, most places are producing about 2,000 echoes, now you’re taking them to 2,500 or more at $500, that’s an additional $100k per tech. Many hospitals have 8-10 techs scanning in any given day, so it’s a really compelling ROI.
This is an AI that really has both a clinical benefit but also a huge ROI. There’s this whole debate out there about who pays for AI and how does it get paid for? This one’s a no brainer.
The Imaging Wire: If you could step back and take a holistic view of V2, what benefits do you think that your software has for patients as well as hospitals and healthcare systems?
Seth Koeppel: It goes back to just the inefficiencies of echo – you’re taking something that is highly manual, relies on expert humans that are in short supply. It’s as if you’re an expert craftsman, and you’ve been cutting by hand with a hand tool, and then somebody walks in and hands you a power tool. We still need the expert human, who knows where to cut, what to cut, how to cut. But now somebody has given him a tool that allows him to just do this job so much more efficiently, with a higher degree of accuracy.
Let’s take another example. Strain is something that has been particularly difficult for operators because every vendor, every cart manufacturer, has their own proprietary strain. You can’t compare strain results done on a GE cart to a Philips cart to a Siemens cart. It takes time, you have to train the operators, you have human variability in there.
In V2, strain is now included, it’s fully automated, and it’s vendor-neutral. You don’t have to buy expensive upgrades to carts to get access to it. So many, many problems are solved just in that one simple set of parameters.
If we put it all together and look at the potential of AI echo, we can address the backlog, allow for more echo to be done in the echo lab but also in primary care settings and clinics where AI echo opens new pathways for screening and detection of heart failure and heart disease at an early stage, early detection for more efficient treatment.
This helps facilities facing the increasing demand for echo support and creates efficient longitudinal follow-up for oncology patients or populations at risk.
In addition, we can open access to echo exams in parts of the world which do not have the expensive carts nor the expert workforce available and deliver on our mission to democratize echocardiography.
José Rivero: I would say that V2 is a very strong release, which includes contrast, stress echo, and strain. I would love to see all three, including all whatever we had on V1, to be mainstream, and see the customer satisfaction with this because I think that it does bring a big solution to the echo world.
The Imaging Wire: As the year progresses, what else can we look forward to seeing from Us2.ai?
José Rivero: In the clinical area, we will continue our work to expand the range of measurements and validate our detection models, but we are also very keen to start looking into pediatric echo.
Seth Koeppel: Our user interface has been greatly improved in V2 and this is something we really want to keep focus on. We are also working on refining our automated reporting to include customization features, perfecting the report output to further support the clinicians reviewing these, and integrating LLM models to make reporting accessible for non-experts HCP and the patients themselves.
REFERENCES
Tromp, J., Sarra, C., Bouchahda Nidhal, Ben Messaoud Mejdi, Fourat Zouari, Hummel, Y., Khadija Mzoughi, Sondes Kraiem, Wafa Fehri, Habib Gamra, Lam, C. S. P., Alexandre Mebazaa, & Faouzi Addad. (2023). Nurse-led home-based detection of cardiac dysfunction by ultrasound: Results of the CUMIN pilot study. European Heart Journal. Digital Health.
Huang, W., Lee, A., Tromp, J., Loon Yee Teo, Chandramouli, C., Choon Ta Ng, Huang, F., Carolyn S.P. Lam, & See Hooi Ewe. (2023). Point-of-care AI-assisted echocardiography for screening of heart failure (HANES-HF). Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 81(8), 2145–2145.
Hirata, Y., Nomura, Y., Yoshihito Saijo, Sata, M., & Kusunose, K. (2024). Reducing echocardiographic examination time through routine use of fully automated software: a comparative study of measurement and report creation time. Journal of Echocardiography.
Hidenori Yaku, Komtebedde, J., Silvestry, F. E., & Sanjiv Jayendra Shah. (2024). Deep learning-based automated measurements of echocardiographic estimators invasive pulmonary capillary wedge pressure perform equally to core lab measurements: results from REDUCE LAP-HF II. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 83(13), 316–316.
Yet another study is showing support for CT lung cancer screening. In a real-world study in Cancer, researchers tracked screening’s impact on military veterans, finding that it contributed to more early-stage diagnoses as well as lower all-cause mortality.
It’s no secret that uptake of CT lung screening has been disappointing since the USPSTF in 2013 endorsed the test for high-risk people – mostly those with smoking histories.
Uptake rates have been estimated to be under 10% by some studies, although recent research has shown that targeted interventions can improve that figure.
In the new study, researchers described results from the Veterans Health Administration’s effort to provide low-dose CT lung cancer screening to veterans from 2011 to 2018.
The researchers noted that smoking rates are higher among veterans, resulting in lung cancer incidence rates that are 76% higher than the general population.
Researchers tracked outcomes retrospectively for 2.2k veterans who got screening before a lung cancer diagnosis and compared them to those with lung cancer who weren’t screened, finding that screening led to…
Higher rates of stage I diagnosis (52% vs. 27%)
Lower rates of stage IV diagnosis (11% vs. 32%)
Lower rates of cancer mortality (41% vs. 70%)
Lower rates of all-cause mortality (50% vs. 72%)
The sharp reduction in all-cause mortality is particularly striking.
As we’ve discussed in the past, most population-based cancer screening tests have been shown to reduce cancer-specific deaths, but it’s been harder to show a decline in deaths from all causes.
The study also illustrates the advantage of providing lung screening within a large, integrated healthcare system, where it’s easier to track at-risk individuals and direct them to screening if necessary.
The Takeaway
Of all the positive studies published so far this year on CT lung cancer screening, this one is the most exciting. The findings show that even in an environment of low lung screening uptake, dramatic benefits can be realized with the right approach.
It’s no secret that US radiology’s traditional private-practice model has been slowly fading away, but new numbers published in AJRillustrate the magnitude of the shift. The number of radiologist-affiliated and radiologist-only practices has dropped, even as the total number of US radiologists has gone up.
Radiology has long prided itself on a cozy business model in which radiologists banded together as owner-operators of small private-practice groups that contracted their services with hospitals.
This model has had many benefits for radiologists, but it’s begun to fray in the face of competitive threats like teleradiology providers, health system consolidation, and large national radiology groups like Radiology Partners.
Many radiologists have chosen to switch rather than fight, selling out to national groups or taking positions as employees within health systems.
Meanwhile, some practices that want to stay independent are finding strength in numbers by joining with other like-minded groups or seeking out multi-specialty medical groups.
In the new study, researchers from the ACR’s Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute analyzed CMS data from 2014 to 2023, tracking not only changes in the number of US radiologists but also their type of employment, finding …
The number of radiologists grew 17%, from 30.7k to 36k
But the number of radiologist-affiliated practices fell 15%, from 5.1k to 4.3k
The number of radiology-only practices fell 32%
The number of small radiology practices fell, with the decline varying by practice size: 1-2 radiologists -19%, 3-9 radiologists -34%, and 10-24 radiologists -25%
The number of large practices jumped, with the biggest increase – 349% – at very large practices (over 100 radiologists)
The mean number of radiologists per practice shot up 84%, from 9.7 to 17.9
Why the shift? The researchers theorized that much of it was driven by federal policy and reimbursement changes that incentivize consolidation, mostly to spread the risk and cost of compliance with various regulations like ACA and MACRA.
The Takeaway
There’s no question that radiology is changing – the question is what impact the changes will have on how radiologists perceive their work. The old guard may choose to rage against the dying of the light, while younger generations embrace the new model and its benefits for both professional careers and patient care.
In a landmark study of 40k patients from the UK published in The Lancet, an AI-derived score that analyzed coronary arterial inflammation on coronary CT angiography scans was effective in predicting future cardiac risk in people regardless of whether they had obstructive coronary artery disease.
CCTA’s power for predicting heart problems has been demonstrated in multiple studies, and it’s now considered a first-line test for individuals with chest pain.
But the situation is trickier in those without obstructive disease – prompting researchers to ask whether CCTA’s ability to visualize subtle changes in cardiac structure and function could be leveraged – such as with AI – to deliver even more prognostic power.
The Oxford Risk Factors And Noninvasive imaging (ORFAN) study in the UK is addressing that question by conducting CCTA scans in 40k patients as part of routine clinical care at eight hospitals.
Researchers analyzed outcomes in the entire ORFAN population of 40k patients, then followed a subset of 3.4k higher-risk patients for 7.7 years to study the value of a perivascular fat attenuation index (FAI) score.
FAI scores measure heart inflammation in coronary arteries and are calculated using Caristo Diagnostics’ CaRi-Heart AI software.
The scores are combined with other traditional risk factors to create an AI-Risk classification that predicts the likelihood of an adverse event.
Researchers found that …
Across the entire 40k cohort, patients without obstructive CAD accounted for 64% of cardiac deaths and 66% of MACE – twice as many as those with obstructive CAD
In the smaller higher-risk cohort, patients with an elevated FAI score in all three coronary arteries had a higher risk of cardiac mortality (HR=29.8) or MACE (HR=12.6)
Elevated FAI scores in any coronary artery also predicted cardiac mortality
AI-Risk scores were associated with cardiac mortality (HR=6.75) and MACE (HR=4.68) when comparing very-high-risk versus low- or medium-risk patients
The first data point is worth noting, as it illustrates the need to improve risk stratification and management in people without obstructive CAD.
The Takeaway The ORFAN results are an exciting development for cardiac CT AI (in addition to being a major coup for Caristo, which raised $16.3M last year to commercialize CaRi-Heart globally). Measurements of coronary inflammation could give clinicians another tool – in addition to plaque measurements and calcium scoring – to predict cardiac events.
The Doximity survey of 33k doctors found that overall physician pay grew 5.9% last year, a welcome rebound after a decline of 2.4% in 2022.
In other good news, medicine’s gender pay gap narrowed in the new survey, with women making 23% less than men, down from 26% in 2022 and 28% in 2021.
For radiologists, their average annual compensation was $532k, up from $504k a year ago, and radiology jumped ahead of urology on the top 10 list to occupy the ninth spot.
Still, radiology lagged a number of other specialties in terms of salary growth, ranging from hematology (+12.4%) to psychiatry (+7.2%).
Other findings in the survey include …
Some 81% of physicians reported they are overworked, a number that’s actually down from 86% in 2022
88% of respondents said their clinical practice has been affected by the physician shortage
86% of those surveyed said they are concerned about the US healthcare system’s ability to care for its aging population
The Doximity results roughly track recently released salary data from Medscape, which pegged radiologist salaries at $498k in 2023, up 3.1% and ranking sixth on the list of highest-paid specialties.
The Takeaway
Say what you want about rising workload and burnout in radiology – radiologists are still among the best-compensated physicians in medicine. And the situation in the US is in sharp contrast to Japan, where radiology is one of the lowest-paid specialties (see our article in The Wire section below).
New research confirms that not only does low-dose CT screening reduce lung cancer mortality, it can also narrow health disparities. Researchers found that screening’s beneficial impact was greater at lower socioeconomic levels in a new study published in Lancet Regional Health – Europe.
As we mentionedin our last issue, CT lung cancer screening is gaining momentum globally; at the same time, researchers have documented greater mortality and morbidity for a variety of diseases among racial minorities and at lower socioeconomic levels.
This difference can be especially profound when it comes to lung disease, given higher smoking rates among some minority groups and economically disadvantaged populations.
In the original UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial (UKLS) in 2021, researchers found that a single CT screening round produced a 16% lung cancer mortality reduction.
The new study is a secondary analysis of UKLS to investigate whether CT lung screening’s impact differed by socioeconomic status, which is important given that smoking occurs in England at higher rates in the most deprived neighborhoods compared to wealthier ones (24% vs. 6.8%).
UKLS researchers compared lung cancer mortality rates in 4k individuals in different groups classified by a widely used socioeconomic barometer. They found that …
CT lung screening had the same lung cancer mortality benefit in both low and high socioeconomic groups (-19% vs. -20%)
But there was a bigger reduction in death from COPD in lower socioeconomic groups (-34% vs. +4%)
And fewer deaths from other lung diseases (-32% vs. +10%)
While cardiovascular mortality was also lower (-30% vs. -13%)
All-cause mortality was lower in lower socioeconomic groups – a benefit not seen at higher levels
Lung screening’s reduction in all-cause mortality is particularly intriguing, as this is an accomplishment that has eluded most other cancer screening tests – a point that has been repeatedly hammered home by screening skeptics.
The Takeaway
The new findings highlight how – to a greater degree than other major cancer screening tests – CT lung screening has the potential to address ongoing racial and socioeconomic healthcare disparities. It’s yet another reason to press for broader adoption of lung screening.
Making CT lung cancer screening more effective has been a hot topic at the American Thoracic Society meeting, which convened this weekend in San Diego. Presentations at ATS 2024 have ranged from improving screening compliance rates to eliminating racial disparities in screening attendance.
After years of fits and starts, low-dose CT lung cancer screening appears to be finally making progress.
While the US still struggles with overly restrictive screening criteria and convoluted reimbursement rules, the rest of the world – including Australia, Germany, and Taiwan – is moving ahead with population-based screening programs designed to counter the tobacco epidemic’s deadly scourge.
At ATS 2024, investigators are presenting research to ensure that the benefits of CT lung cancer screening are delivered to those who need it, with the following highlights …
Researchers at the University of Minnesota saw a 7.2% completion rate for screening-specific low-dose CT among 91k eligible individuals – an indication of “overall poor uptake of screening”
To improve uptake, another group implemented a centralized nurse coordinator for lung screening, resulting in a 23-day reduction in time from initial consultation to report delivery as well as better adherence to eligibility criteria
Patients who self-identify as Black are more likely to miss a scheduled CT screening appointment (OR=2.05), while Hispanic patients also have high miss rates (OR=1.92) as do those with limited English proficiency (OR=1.72). The numbers highlight the need for patient conversations to boost completion rates
Incidence rates of lung and bronchus cancer dropped from 2007-2019 compared to 1999-2006, underscoring the importance of smoking cessation and supporting current USPSTF age criteria for lung screening
Pulmonary physicians significantly overestimated their patients’ lung screening completion rates, with almost half thinking the rate was higher than 60% when it was actually 17%. Researchers suggested interventions for improving completion rates
The Takeaway
The fact that ATS 2024 has seen so many presentations on CT lung cancer screening – the vast majority presented by US authors – indicates that low screening rates haven’t discouraged American researchers and clinicians. The presentations underscore the progress being made toward making the benefits of lung screening available to Americans who would benefit from it.
Is radiology’s AI edge fading, at least when it comes to its share of AI-enabled medical devices being granted regulatory authorization by the FDA? The latest year-to-date figures from the agency suggest that radiology’s AI dominance could be declining.
Radiology was one of the first medical specialties to go digital, and software developers have targeted the field for AI applications like image analysis and data reconstruction.
Indeed, FDA data from recent years shows that radiology makes up the vast majority of agency authorizations for AI- and machine learning-enabled medical devices, ranging from 86% in 2020 and 2022 to 79% in 2023.
But in the new data, radiology devices made up only 73% of authorizations from January-March 2024. Other data points indicate that the FDA …
Authorized 151 new devices since August 2023
Reclassified as AI/ML-enabled 40 devices that were previously authorized
Authorized a total of 882 devices since it began tracking the field
In an interesting wrinkle, many of the devices on the updated list are big-iron scanners that the FDA has decided to classify as AI/ML-enabled devices.
These include CT and MRI scanners from Siemens Healthineers, ultrasound scanners from Philips and Canon Medical Systems, an MRI scanner from United Imaging, and the recently launched Butterfly iQ3 POCUS scanner.
The additions could be a sign that imaging OEMs increasingly are baking AI functionality into their products at a basic level, blurring the line between hardware and software.
The Takeaway
It should be no cause for panic that radiology’s share of AI/ML authorizations is declining as other medical specialties catch up to the discipline’s head start. The good news is that the FDA’s latest figures show how AI is becoming an integral part of medicine, in ways that clinicians may not even notice.
Get every issue of The Imaging Wire, delivered right to your inbox.