Greg Freiherr, Industry Consultant
Greg Freiherr, Industry Consultant

Greg Freiherr has reported on developments in radiology since 1983. He runs the consulting service, The Freiherr Group.

Blog | Greg Freiherr, Industry Consultant | June 18, 2012

JAMA, can we please move on?

The lag between news and peer-review last week dragged radiology back into the quagmire of concern about patient exposure to diagnostic radiation, thanks to an ill-considered publication that illustrates the shortcomings of peer-reviewed journals as it does the failure of opinion leaders to lead.

A paper published in the June 13 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) entitled, “Use of Diagnostic Imaging Studies and Associated Radiation Exposure for Patients Enrolled in Large Integrated Health Care Systems, 1996-2010” http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1182858, described growth in the use of advanced diagnostic imaging, as if the data were some new revelation, concluding that the use of such imaging should be balanced against benefit and cost, as if this trend were continuing unabated.

Results published in JAMA detail the number of exams during the 15-year period from 1996 to 2010 – the average number per person; the percentage comprised by advanced imaging (i.e., computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], nuclear medicine and ultrasound); the rates of imaging examinations per 1,000 enrollees in 2008 by modality, site and anatomic area; and the total rate of imaging per 1,000 enrollees per year with the most common ranked from one to five (radiography, ultrasound, CT, MRI, angiography/fluoroscopy and nuclear medicine). Ultrasound doubled, CT tripled and MRI quadrupled. If the findings were put to lyrics, Arlo Guthrie would have been the one to sing them.

JAMA would have been Officer Obie. Alice’s Restaurant would have been the medical community. And the truth would have been laid bare about advanced imaging from 1996 to 2010, just as it was in the days after that fateful Thanksgiving, when a good deed by Arlo and his friends went awry and their guilt was established by plaster tire tracks, footprints and dog smelling prints; 27 eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back explaining each; pictures of the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner of the southwest corner and, of course, aerial photography.

Just as the hard facts were irrelevant for Arlo, so are they for the imaging community. What happened in 2010 is not what is happening in 2012. The years leading immediately to the present and the ones to come in the future are not the 14 years from 1996 to 2010, an atypical era of growth for high-tech medical imaging that is no longer underway. Myriad studies have noted the increased cumulative patient exposure coming from imaging, a fact underscored by the release of several generations of dose reduction technologies by industry.

What we want to know – what we need to know – is whether the technological advances and heightened awareness of patient exposure have led to less patient dose; whether the declining sale of high-tech imaging system due to cutbacks in reimbursement and a global recession has reduced the growth rate in medical imaging; whether guidelines from medical societies are making a difference?

Instead, we’re getting conclusions like the one published last week: “Given the high costs of imaging – estimated at $100 billion annually — and the potential risks of cancer and other harms, these (imaging) benefits should be quantified, and evidence-based guidelines for using imaging should be developed that clearly balance benefits against financial costs and health risk.”

Especially telling is this reference to the need for guidelines, a reference made despite the publication two months ago of such guidelines by just about every major medical discipline ("'Choosing Wisely' Campaign Validates Use of Imaging Tests," http://www.itnonline.com/content/choosing-wisely-campaign-validates-use-imaging-tests).

The irrelevance of the JAMA article is as much an indictment of the peer review system as it is of the publication of this study.

Officer Obie, can we please move on?

Related Content

Qaelum NV and Toyo Corp. Sign Japanese Distribution Agreement for Dose Monitoring Solution
News | Radiation Dose Management | April 10, 2019
Qaelum NV of Leuven, Belgium, and Toyo Corp. of Tokyo, Japan announced they have entered into a cooperation agreement...
Omega Medical Imaging Launches AI-enabled FluoroShield for Radiation Reduction
Technology | Radiation Dose Management | April 04, 2019
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Omega Medical Imaging 510(k) clearance to offer their artificial...
Videos | RSNA | April 03, 2019
ITN Editor Dave Fornell takes a tour of some of the most interesting new medical imaging technologies displa
Four of the top pieces of content in March included news on proton therapy, including a 360 image and videos from ITN's recent visit to the Northwestern Medicine Proton Center in the Chicago suburbs. This image shows the main proton treatment room gantry at the proton center in Warrenville, Ill. Interview with Mark Pankuch, Ph.D.

Four of the top pieces of content in March included news on proton therapy, including a 360 image and videos from ITN's recent visit to the Northwestern Medicine Proton Center in the Chicago suburbs. This image shows the main proton treatment room gantry at the proton center in Warrenville, Ill.
 

Feature | April 02, 2019 | Dave Fornell, Editor and A.J. Connell
April 2, 2019 — Here is the list of the most popular content on the Imaging Technology News (ITN) magazine w
At #ACC.19, Siemens unveiled a version of its go.Top platform optimized for cardiovascular imaging. The newly packaged scanner can generate the data needed to do CT-based FFR (fractional flow reserve).

At #ACC.19, Siemens unveiled a version of its go.Top platform optimized for cardiovascular imaging. The newly packaged scanner can generate the data needed to do CT-based FFR (fractional flow reserve). Photo by Greg Freiherr

Feature | Cardiac Imaging | March 22, 2019 | By Greg Freiherr
Reflecting a trend toward the increased use of...
SyncVision iFR Co-registration from Philips Healthcare maps iFR pressure readings onto angiogram.

SyncVision iFR Co-registration from Philips Healthcare maps iFR pressure readings onto angiogram. Results from an international study presented at #ACC19 show that pressure readings in coronary arteries may identify locations of stenoses remaining after cardiac cath interventions.

Feature | Cardiac Imaging | March 18, 2019 | By Greg Freiherr
As many as one in four patients who undergo cath lab interventions can benefit from a technology that identifies the
Jennifer N. A. Silva, M.D., a pediatric cardiologist at Washington University School of Medicine in Saint Louis, Mo., describes “mixed reality” at ACC19 Future Hub.

Jennifer N. A. Silva, M.D., a pediatric cardiologist at Washington University School of Medicine in Saint Louis, Mo., describes “mixed reality” at ACC19 Future Hub.

Feature | Cardiac Imaging | March 17, 2019 | By Greg Freiherr
Virtual reality (VR) and its less immersive kin, augmented reality (AR), are gaining traction in some medical applica
WVU cardiology chief Partho Sengupta, M.D., describes at ACC 2019 how artificial intelligence already helps cardiologists in echocardiography.

WVU cardiology chief Partho Sengupta, M.D., describes at ACC 2019 how artificial intelligence already helps cardiologists in echocardiography. Photo by Greg Freiherr

Feature | Cardiac Imaging | March 16, 2019 | By Greg Freiherr
Machine learning is already having an enormous impact on cardiology, automatically calculating measurements in echoca
Podcast | Cardiac Imaging | March 15, 2019
Debate About Coronary Testing Highlights ACC Session
Podcast | Cardiac Imaging | March 12, 2019
How smart algorithms might reduce the burden of modern practice