molecular imaging

[Enkidu]

---

Members don't see this ad.

What do you guys know about molecular imaging techniques? I guess that theoretically they could be used to help classify tumors and other lesions before a biopsy is performed. Do you think that this technology will plausibly become an important part of radiology?

 

[fun8stuff]

What do you guys know about molecular imaging techniques? I guess that theoretically they could be used to help classify tumors and other lesions before a biopsy is performed. Do you think that this technology will plausibly become an important part of radiology?

yes

 

[Raygun77]

if you mean nuc med techniques like PET scans (which i assume)- I have a feeling that there will be more and more pressure for nucs to double board in radiology (otherwise are you going to get a radiologist to 'over-read' the MRI part of your PET/MRI (which is on its way)?

Id consider advanced MR techniques like diffusion, perfusion, SPECT to be 'molecular imaging'. So that's firmly radiology.

 

[scienceguy19]

to distinguish clear cell, frompapillary, chromophobe, X18 translocation, and oncocytoma, collecting duct carcinoma? probably not at least not in the near future

 

[goingnuclear]

Actually a tracer that distinguish clear cell RCC from other renal masses is actually in phase three clinical trials and has already been optioned by a small pharma company. molecular imaging is already here in both theory and in practice, just not in reimbursement

we're doing 'molecular imaging' to detect infection (FDG), breast cancer (sestimibi), and dementia (amyloid imaging). Although anatomic imaging will always be the most widespread and widely used modality, molecular imaging will only increase in popularity and reimbursement. At the center at where I started my residency we were doing 2-3 PETs per day, now I read 10-11 a day.

 

[Enkidu]

Actually a tracer that distinguish clear cell RCC from other renal masses is actually in phase three clinical trials and has already been optioned by a small pharma company. molecular imaging is already here in both theory and in practice, just not in reimbursement

we're doing 'molecular imaging' to detect infection (FDG), breast cancer (sestimibi), and dementia (amyloid imaging). Although anatomic imaging will always be the most widespread and widely used modality, molecular imaging will only increase in popularity and reimbursement. At the center at where I started my residency we were doing 2-3 PETs per day, now I read 10-11 a day.

Even if molecular imaging is able to distinguish all of the renal masses, which is probably very optimistic, how could it be cost effective? A biopsy seems to be a very cheap and extremely high-yield study of any renal mass. Could molecular imaging ever beat the price or information content of a biopsy?