Tag: screening

AI Powers Opportunistic Screening

Posted on by Brian Casey

The growing power of AI is opening up new possibilities for opportunistic screening – the detection of pathology using data acquired for other clinical indications. The potential of CT-based opportunistic screening – and AI’s role in its growth – was explored in a session at RSNA 2023.

What’s so interesting about opportunistic screening with CT? 

  • As one of imaging’s most widely used modalities, CT scans are already being acquired for many clinical indications, collecting body composition data on muscle, fat, and bone that can be biomarkers for hidden pathology. 

What’s more, AI-based tools are replacing many of the onerous manual measurement tasks that previously required radiologist involvement. There are four primary biomarkers for opportunistic screening, which are typically related to several major pathologies, said Perry Pickhardt, MD, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who led off the RSNA session:

  • Skeletal muscle density (sarcopenia)
  • Hard calcified plaque, either coronary or aortic (cardiovascular risk)
  • Visceral fat (cardiovascular risk)
  • Bone mineral density (osteoporosis and fractures) 

But what about the economics of opportunistic screening? 

  • A recent study in Abdominal Radiology found that in a hypothetical cohort of 55-year-old men and women, AI-assisted opportunistic screening for cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and sarcopenia was more cost-effective compared to both “no-treatment” and “statins for all” strategies – even assuming a $250/scan charge for use of AI.

But there are barriers to opportunistic screening, despite its potential. In a follow-up talk, Arun Krishnaraj, MD, of UVA Health in Virginia said he believes fully automated AI algorithms are needed to avoid putting the burden on radiologists. 

And the regulatory environment for AI tools is complex and must be navigated, said Bernardo Bizzo, MD, PhD, of Mass General Brigham.

Ready to take the plunge? The steps for setting up a screening program using AI were described in another talk by John Garrett, PhD, Pickhardt’s colleague at UW-Madison. This includes: 

  • Normalizing your data for AI tools
  • Identifying the anatomical landmarks you want to focus on
  • Automatically segmenting areas of interest
  • Making the biomarker measurements
  • Plugging your data into AI models to predict outcomes and risk-stratify patients

The Takeaway

Opportunistic screening has the potential to flip the script in the debate over radiology utilization, making imaging exams more cost-effective while detecting additional pathology and paving the way to more personalized medicine. With AI’s help, radiologists have the opportunity to place themselves at the center of modern healthcare. 

Screening Foes Strike Back

Posted on by Brian Casey

Opponents of population-based cancer screening aren’t going away anytime soon. Just weeks after publication of a landmark study claiming that cancer screening has saved $7T over 25 years, screening foes published a counterattack in JAMA Internal Medicine casting doubt on whether screening has any value at all. 

Population-based cancer screening has been controversial since the first programs were launched decades ago. 

  • A vocal minority of skeptics continues to raise concerns about screening, despite the fact that mortality rates have dropped and survival rates have increased for the four cancers targeted by population screening.

This week’s JAMA Internal Medicine featured a series of articles that cast doubt on screening. In the main study, researchers performed a meta-analysis of 18 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) covering 2.1M people for six major screening tests, including mammography, CT lung cancer screening, and colon and PSA tests. 

  • The authors, led by Norwegian gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD, concluded that only flexible sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer produced a gain in lifetimes. They conclude that RCTs to date haven’t included enough patients who were followed over enough years to show screening has an effect on all-cause mortality.

But a deeper dive into the study produces interesting revelations. For CT lung cancer screening, Bretthauer et al didn’t include the landmark National Lung Screening Trial, an RCT that showed a 20% mortality reduction from screening.

  • With respect to breast imaging, the researchers only included three studies, even though there have been eight major mammography RCTs performed. And one of the three included was the controversial Canadian National Breast Screening Study, originally conducted in the 1980s.

When it comes to colon screening, Bretthauer included his own controversial 2022 NordICC study in his meta-analysis. 

  • The NordICC study found that if a person is invited to colon screening but doesn’t follow through, they don’t experience a mortality benefit. But those who actually got colon screening saw a 50% mortality reduction.  

Other articles in this week’s JAMA Internal Medicine series were penned by researchers well known for their opposition to population-based screening, including Gilbert Welch, MD, and Rita Redberg, MD.

The Takeaway

There’s an old saying in statistics: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” Among major academic journals, JAMA Internal Medicine – which Redberg guided for 14 years as editor until she stepped down in June – has consistently been the most hostile toward screening and new medical technology.

In the end, the arguments being made by screening’s foes would carry more weight if they were coming from researchers and journals that haven’t already demonstrated a longstanding, ingrained bias against population-based cancer screening.

Value of Cancer Screening

Posted on by Brian Casey

A new study claims that medical screening for diseases like breast and cervical cancer has saved lives and generated value of at least $7.5T (yes, trillion) over the last 25 years. The findings, published in BMC Health Services Research, are a stunning rebuke to critics of screening exams.

While the vast majority of doctors and public health officials support evidence-based screening, a vocal minority of skeptics continues to raise questions about screening’s efficacy. These critics emphasize the “harms” of screening, such as overdiagnosis and patient anxiety – an accusation often levied against breast screening. 

Screening’s critics also target the downstream costs of medical tests intended to confirm suspicious findings. They argue that a single screen-detected finding can lead to a cascade of additional healthcare spending that drives up medical costs.

But the new study offers a counter-argument, putting a dollar figure on how much screening exams have saved by detecting disease earlier, when it can be treated more effectively. 

The research focused on the four main cancer screening tests – breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer – analyzing the impact of preventive screening on life-years saved and its economic impact from 1996 to 2020, finding …

  • Americans enjoyed at least 12M more years of life thanks to cancer screening
  • The economic value of these life-years added up to at least $7.5T
  • If everyone who qualified for screening exams got them, it would save at least another 3.3M life-years and $1.7T in economic impact
  • Cervical cancer screening had by far the biggest economic impact ($5.2T-$5.7T), followed by breast ($0.8T-$1.9T), colorectal ($0.4T-$1T), and finally lung ($40B). 

Lung cancer’s paltry value was due to a small eligible population and low screening adherence rates. This finding is underscored by a new article in STAT that ponders why CT lung cancer screening rates are so low, with one observer calling it the “redheaded stepchild” of screening tests.  

The Takeaway
Screening skeptics have been taking it on the chin lately (witness the USPSTF’s U-turn on mammography for younger women) and the new findings will be another blow. We may continue to see a dribble of papers on the “harms” of overdiagnosis, but the momentum is definitely shifting in screening’s favor – to the benefit of patients.

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

You might also like..

Select All

You're signed up!

It's great to have you as a reader. Check your inbox for a welcome email.

-- The Imaging Wire team

You're all set!