Two decades of research on the masking risk of dense breast tissue by mammography screening is indisputable. As the density of the breast increases, the reliability of a mammogram to see, and in turn, detect breast cancer decreases. Additionally, since 1976, researchers have concluded that having dense breast tissue is also an independent risk factor for breast cancer. Unlike the masking risk, the extent of the causal risk of dense breast tissue has been fiercely debated in the literature and by healthcare professionals from having a slight, to moderate, to strong risk of developing breast cancer. Several studies conclude that having dense breast tissue is a larger risk than having a family history of the disease. According to the American Cancer Society, heterogeneously or extremely dense breast tissue (greater than 50 percent dense) confers a 2.1 to 4 times greater risk of breast cancer as compared to women with less dense breasts, similar to having one first-degree relative with breast cancer.

Hollywood has shone its lights on potential dystopian futures and the threats of cruel, calculating computers for decades. But look beyond the Arnold Schwarzenegger-type cinematic portrayals of cybernetic antagonists, and there might be a future for the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) where teaching machines new tricks with data could result in huge benefits for transforming diagnostic capacity and the very nature of how our professionals identify serious illnesses.

Computed tomography colonography (CTC), also known as virtual colonoscopy, offers a noninvasive alternative to traditional (optical) colonoscopy for detection of precancerous polyps. The technology has been around for over 20 years, and numerous studies have shown it to be effective for diagnosis and screening. Questions about its utility as a screening tool persist, however, as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reiterated in December that it will not reimburse providers for CTC in that role. The radiology community is working to change that by finding ways to improve the procedure and educating patients and providers.

While radiation oncologists have a number of proven techniques at their disposal for treating patients, the reality is that no two patients are alike — perhaps even more so than in other medical specialties. As such, a great deal of planning is required to engineer an ideal, personalized treatment approach, especially as more advanced therapies continue to mature. In the last 12 months, several vendors have released updates to their treatment planning software (TPS) to help generate the most precise treatment plans possible while streamlining workflow. While many of these take the form of software to integrate with existing systems, a few dedicated radiotherapy imaging systems hit the market as well.