Diagnostic Imaging Scan - March 4, 2008 - (Page 4) Myers Squibb to visualize myocardial perfusion. The FDA has tentatively approved an abbreviated new drug application for its technetiumbased generic. Final approval is subject to the end of Squibb’s marketing exclusivity period for Cardiolite, which is scheduled to occur July 29. Computer-aided detection specialist iCAD has launched a new version of its mammogram digitizer. TotalLook MammoAdvantage Film Digitizer features improved image quality, enhanced image customization options, and greater workflow efficiency. Halifax Biomedical, a contract research services firm, has selected Imaging Dynamics’ X1590 digital radiography system as part of an imaging suite to be used in orthopedic clinical trials. The research is designed to measure the stability of orthopedic implants to a fraction of a millimeter. A new series of display controller boards from Matrox Graphics can drive up to three highresolution digital displays. The multidisplay capability minimizes the time needed to install, configure, and deploy radiology and PACS workstations. The U.S. arm of Korean ultrasound manufacturer Medison has cut a deal with a capital equipment management systems firm to house and deploy its line of ultrasound systems. The agreement with Attainia is designed to streamline the shipment of Medison products to meet orders expected from the company’s recent sales initiatives with group purchasing organizations, integrated delivery networks, and hospital and imaging group customers. Digital radiography specialist Imaging Dynamics has patented a dual-energy, optically coupled DR system. The patent explains how two distinct images of the same subject can be acquired simultaneously using different x-ray spectra, and thereby distinguishing among overlapping anatomical structures. ferent hospital or from home, then we would suggest using a thin client.” Siemens uses this complementary approach to PACS, a combination of thick- and thin-client systems, to address the expanding challenges of enterprise-wide imaging. The foundation is syngo Suite, composed of RIS, PACS, and processing capabilities for radiology and cardiology. The RIS, syngo Workflow, governs the process from order entry to image and report distribution. The radiology PACS, syngo Imaging, is modular and scalable. Syngo Dynamics is a multimodality, dynamic image review, diagnosis, and archiving system for cardiology, general imaging, and ob/gyn. The web-enabled teleradiology component, syngo WebSpace, runs from an office computer, home PC, or laptop. The migration of sophisticated applications to Siemens’ thin-client system is an offshoot of the company’s efforts to meet the varied challenges of healthcare. Its mix of thickand thin-client products covers current and future demands, with WebSpace filling in where needed. “Even if you don’t have Siemens’ PACS, you still can use WebSpace for 3D reconstructions,” Primo said. “For CT angiography, this is a no-brainer if you have a 64-slice CT. And in the future, if reimbursement for virtual colonoscopy happens, WebSpace will provide this capability whenever and wherever the radiologist or gastroenterologist may be.” stumbles and bumbles for years on end. A decade ago I was certain that digital radiography would take the world by storm. X-ray was the backbone of medical imaging and sorely in need of enhancement. Radiography tables and chest stands were 10, 15, even 20 years old at some sites. DR, with its solid-state detectors, was the answer and the market seemed primed to accept it. The alternative to DR, computed radiography, didn’t seem like it would provide much competition. Its phosphor-coated plates and centrally located readers didn’t offer much of an advantage over film. And it had been around for years. DR vendors argued that their technology would vastly increase productivity, an argument DR salespeople are still making today. And why? Because CR didn’t go away. It boomed. You could say that radiography is too cost-sensitive for systems built around expensive solid-state technologies to catch on. But that was exactly the reason given 30 years ago by ultrasound manufacturers for sticking with their low-cost, low-performance scanners—only to have the argument come undone with the release of a 128-channel scanner that forever changed the ultrasound community. So how do we tell which technology will soar commercially and which will flounder? The deciding factor, without a doubt, is economics. And, despite appearances, it always has been. In the cases of 3T, CR, and ultrasound, economics made the case. Cost concerns continue to sweep 3T upward, as prospective customers worry about obsolescence. They are behind CR’s dogged hold on x-ray, as this technology stretches the life cycle of analog radiography systems, delivering digital images on the cheap. The extended clinical use of ultrasound, made possible by advanced scanners, expanded the economic viability of this modality. Much the same can be said for other technologies that have taken hold in the marketplace. PACS make medical practice more efficient. MR and CT speed the diagnostic process, as they guide less costly and less invasive interventions. Why is it, then, that we react with such disdain to the thought that economics should be taken into account when developing an imaging technology? We need to acknowledge the role of economics in medical practice, not grudgingly but enthusiastically. We need to use current practices in medicine as benchmarks and then compare them to procedures made possible by new technologies. Those comparisons should consider whether new ideas are as effective—or more effective—clinically, but also how they compare in cost. And we can’t afford to be humble about the findings. Imaging is under attack because it is perceived as a cost center. We need to prove, whenever possible, that it is a center for cost savings, as well as a critical element for quality healthcare. Or else the harassment being leveled at medical imaging now will pale in comparison to what is yet to come. March 4, 2008 COMMENTARY DOllARs AND sENsE iN iNNOvATiON GREG FREIHERR Give me a good gadget and I’m happy. I think a lot of people in radiology would say the same thing. It’s the reason crowds gathered 15 years ago to see 3D reconstructions revolving aimlessly in space. It’s why MR was a hit in the early 1980s. Historically, good gadgets seem to succeed, even when those technologies are ahead of their time. Take 3T, for example. A few years ago, vendors cast 3T as the new standard bearer of high-field MR. “If you’re going to buy only one MR in the next six or eight years, you would be well advised to buy a 3T” —or so the pitch went. And it worked. In the sluggish MR market of the last several years, 3T has bucked the trend. Other times, however, an advanced technology Copyright © 1991-2008 CMP Healthcare Media Group LLC
Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Diagnostic Imaging Scan - March 4, 2008 Diagnostic Imaging Scan - March 4, 2008 Diagnostic Imaging Scan - March 4, 2008 - (Page 1) Diagnostic Imaging Scan - March 4, 2008 - (Page 2) Diagnostic Imaging Scan - March 4, 2008 - (Page 3) Diagnostic Imaging Scan - March 4, 2008 - (Page 4)
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.