Mammography has been the gold standard for breast cancer screening ever since it was proven to reduce mortality in clinical trials in the 1960s. A 2015 report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revealed, however, that only 66.8 percent of women age 40 and over — the demographic traditionally targeted for screening — had received a mammogram in the previous two years.1 Understanding of fibroglandular breast density and its impact on cancer detection, as well as new screening guidelines that challenge conventional wisdom, are among the factors impacting compliance rates, and they suggest that screening has evolved beyond the one-size-fits-all approach of using mammography alone.

Healthcare spending is on the rise. According to a 2014 forecast by FMI, a market research group, total global healthcare spending will reach $52 billion by 2018 — less than two years away. Further research shows that nearly half of the money (40 percent) will be spent on equipment, an encompassing term that includes everything from beds to gurneys to imaging equipment. Radiology actually makes up the lion’s share of equipment costs, accounting for approximately 1/5 (depending on the type of facility) of total equipment expenditures, per a 2015 report from market research firm Medical Architecture Planning Systems. At the same time, it is also a major revenue driver for hospitals, with radiology expected to account for $49 billion of total global medical imaging revenue by 2020, according to BCC Research, a market research company.

Science fiction offers a lot of ideas for creating new body parts on demand, and the advancement of 3-D printing (also called additive manufacturing) is slowly translating this idea into science fact. Today, the 3-D printed anatomic models created from patient computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or 3-D ultrasound imaging datasets are used for education and to plan and navigate difficult procedures. These models are used to teach about complex or rare cardiac or congenital conditions that up until recently could only be seen using examples extracted from cadavers. Anatomical models of rare cardiac anatomy can be printed on-demand from CT scans of surviving patients.

With the New Year nearly upon us, the diagnostic imaging industry will finally begin to realize the effects of Section 502 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. For more than a year, the industry has been humming with talk of anticipated reduction of Medicare payments, expected to impact diagnostic imaging facilities still using analog and computed radiography (CR) technologies. As we are well aware, Section 502 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 provides that Medicare reimbursements will be reduced by 20 percent per year for providers submitting claims for analog X-ray studies beginning this year. From 2018 through 2022, payments for imaging tests performed on CR equipment will be reduced by 7 percent, with a 10 percent reduction beginning in 2023.

The past decade has witnessed significant developments in ultrasound technologies, ranging from portable devices, wireless transducers to 3-D/4-D ultrasound imaging and artificial intelligence. Researchers and scientists are endeavoring on developing technologies that simplify diagnostic procedures, improve efficiency of clinicians and enhance image quality. These research and development activities focus on improving overall quality of patient care. In addition, manufacturers are placing an emphasis on implementing automation in premium-tier systems, portable devices and point-of-care (POC) solutions. The prime focus of vendors will be on offering cost-effective devices with growing innovation and competition in the global industry.

For all the benefits of medical imaging, most forms come with the inherent danger of radiation exposure. Public radiation exposure has increased significantly overall in the last 30 years, and according to a 2006 report from the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), medical imaging accounted for nearly half (48 percent) of all public exposure that year. Several high-profile cases of excessive radiation exposure due to medical imaging have brought the discussion into the public eye, which in turn has spurred greater focus on radiation safety among healthcare facilities and their various regulatory bodies.