The Medical Futurist says that radiology is one of the fastest growing and developing areas of medicine, and therefore this might be the speciality in which we can expect to see the largest steps in development. So why do they think that, and does it apply to dose monitoring? The move from retrospective dose evaluation to a proactive dose management approach represents a serious area of research. Indeed, artificial intelligence and machine learning are consistently being integrated into best-in-class dose management software solutions. The development of clinical analytics and dashboards are already supporting operators in their decision-making, and these optimisations – if taken beyond a single machine, a single department, or a single health network – have the potential to drive real and lasting change. The question is for whom exactly are these innovations being developed? How can the patient know that their scan has been performed to the absolute best that the technology can deliver? Do they know or even care how much their lifetime risk for developing cancer has changed post examination? Do they want a personalised size-specific dose estimate or perhaps an individual organ dose assessment to share on Instagram? Let’s get real about the clinical utility and regulatory application of dose monitoring, and shine a light on the shared responsibility in applying the technology and the associated innovations.
DappaE.HigashigaitoK.FornaroJ., et al.2016. Cinematic rendering – an alternative to volume rendering for 3D computed tomography imaging. Insights Imaging7, 849–856.
2.
ElbazM.S.M.ScottM.B.BarkerA.J., et al.2019. Four-dimensional virtual catheter: noninvasive assessment of intra-aortic hemodynamics in bicuspid aortic valve disease. Radiology293, 541–550.
3.
Fernandez-AntoranD.PiedrafitaG.MuraiK., et al.2019. Outcompeting p53-mutant cells in the normal esophagus by redox manipulation. Cell Stem Cell25, 329–341e6.
4.
FujitaM.HigakiT.AwayaY., et al.2018. Lung cancer screening with ultra-low dose CT using full iterative reconstruction. Jpn. J. Radiol.35, 179–189.
5.
Hong, J.Y., Han, K., Jung, J.H., et al., 2019. Association of exposure to diagnostic low-dose ionizing radiation with risk of cancer among youths in South Korea. JAMA Netw. Open 2, e1910584.
6.
IyengarR.WinkelsJ.L.SmithC.M., et al.2019. The effect of financial incentives on patient decisions to undergo low-value head computed tomography scans. Acad. Emerg. Med.26, 1117–1124.
7.
MitsourasD.LiacourasP.ImanzadehA., et al.2015. Medical 3D printing for the radiologist. Radiographics35, 1965–1988.
8.
Rowe, S.P., Chu, L.C., Recht, H.S., et al. 2020. Black-blood cinematic rendering: A new method for cardiac CT intraluminal visualization. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 14, 272--274.
9.
TridandapaniS.RamamurthyS.GalganoS.J., et al.2013. Increasing rate of detection of wrong-patient radiographs: use of photographs obtained at time of radiography. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.200, W345–W352.