Radiological method using AI algorithms to detect, locate, and identify cancer could negate the need for invasive, painful clinical laboratory testing of tissue biopsies
This will be of interest to histopathologists and radiologist technologists who are working to develop AI deep learning algorithms to read computed tomography scans (CT scans) to speed diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients.
“Researchers used the CT scans of 170 patients treated at The Royal Marsden with the two most common forms of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS)—leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma—to create an AI algorithm, which was then tested on nearly 90 patients from centers across Europe and the US,” the news release notes.
The researchers then “used a technique called radiomics to analyze the CT scan data, which can extract information about the patient’s disease from medical images, including data which can’t be distinguished by the human eye,” the new release states.
The research team sought to make improvements with this type of cancer because these tumors have “a poor prognosis, upfront characterization of the tumor is difficult, and under-grading is common,” they wrote. The fact that AI reading of CT scans is a non-invasive procedure is major benefit, they added.
“This is the largest and most robust study to date that has successfully developed and tested an AI model aimed at improving the diagnosis and grading of retroperitoneal sarcoma using data from CT scans,” said the study’s lead oncology radiologist Christina Messiou, MD, (above), Consultant Radiologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Professor in Imaging for Personalized Oncology at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, in a news release. Invasive medical laboratory testing of cancer biopsies may eventually become a thing of the past if this research becomes clinically available for oncology diagnosis. (Photo copyright: The Royal Marsden.)
Study Details
RPS is a relatively difficult cancer to spot, let alone diagnose. It is a rare form of soft-tissue cancer “with approximately 8,600 new cases diagnosed annually in the United States—less than 1% of all newly diagnosed malignancies,” according to Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
In their published study, the UK researchers noted that, “Although more than 50 soft tissue sarcoma radiomics studies have been completed, few include retroperitoneal sarcomas, and the majority use single-center datasets without independent validation. The limited interpretation of the quantitative radiological phenotype in retroperitoneal sarcomas and its association with tumor biology is a missed opportunity.”
According to the ICR news release, “The [AI] model accurately graded the risk—or how aggressive a tumor is likely to be—[in] 82% of the tumors analyzed, while only 44% were correctly graded using a biopsy.”
Additionally, “The [AI] model also accurately predicted the disease type [in] 84% of the sarcomas tested—meaning it can effectively differentiate between leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma—compared with radiologists who were not able to diagnose 35% of the cases,” the news release states.
“There is an urgent need to improve the diagnosis and treatment of patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma, who currently have poor outcomes,” said the study’s first author Amani Arthur, PhD, Clinical Research Fellow at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, and Registrar at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, in the ICR news release.
“The disease is very rare—clinicians may only see one or two cases in their career—which means diagnosis can be slow. This type of sarcoma is also difficult to treat as it can grow to large sizes and, due to the tumor’s location in the abdomen, involve complex surgery,” she continued. “Through this early research, we’ve developed an innovative AI tool using imaging data that could help us more accurately and quickly identify the type and grade of retroperitoneal sarcomas than current methods. This could improve patient outcomes by helping to speed up diagnosis of the disease, and better tailor treatment by reliably identifying the risk of each patient’s disease.
“In the next phase of the study, we will test this model in clinic on patients with potential retroperitoneal sarcomas to see if it can accurately characterize their disease and measure the performance of the technology over time,” Arthur added.
Importance of Study Findings
Speed of detection is key to successful cancer diagnoses, noted Richard Davidson, Chief Executive of Sarcoma UK, a bone and soft tissue cancer charity.
“People are more likely to survive sarcoma if their cancer is diagnosed early—when treatments can be effective and before the sarcoma has spread to other parts of the body. One in six people with sarcoma cancer wait more than a year to receive an accurate diagnosis, so any research that helps patients receive better treatment, care, information and support is welcome,” he told The Guardian.
According to the World Health Organization, cancer kills about 10 million people worldwide every year. Acquisition and medical laboratory testing of tissue biopsies is both painful to patients and time consuming. Thus, a non-invasive method of diagnosing deadly cancers quickly, accurately, and early would be a boon to oncology practices worldwide and could save thousands of lives each year.
Insights learned from Canada’s experience may benefit clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups in the US as well
Canada continues to face a severe shortage of skilled healthcare professionals, especially among medical laboratory technologists (MLTs) and radiology technicians (RTs). According to the Canadian Society for Medical Laboratory Science (CSMLS), “In 2010, the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) identified that approximately half of all MLTs would be eligible to retire in 10 years, with the greatest impact felt in Canada’s rural and remote communities.” Today, “This staffing concern is currently affecting the professional community across all provinces and territories resulting in the decrease of workers, dramatically impacting organizations and their employees.”
One thing true of government-run healthcare programs is that they consistently underinvest in building new facilities, upgrading older facilities, and training/retaining enough physicians, nurses, and clinical laboratory/radiology workers. This is seen in the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, where varies combinations of facility, physician, and other healthcare professional shortages generate regular headlines about patient wait times—particularly for elective procedures—that may be six months to a year or more.
For example, officials at Pasqua Hospital in Regina, which serves patients in southern Saskatchewan, Canada, say diagnostics services may need to be shut down by the end of January as a result of “extended, chronic staffing shortages.”
“We’re barely struggling to keep up with urgent cases,” Christy Labreche, a nuclear medicine technologist told the Regina-Leader Post, which noted that people requesting non-urgent treatment may need to make appointments six to 12 weeks out.
Pasqua Hospital leaders have asked province officials to take “immediate action,” but they feel their concerns are “falling on deaf ears,” the Leader Post reported.
“For over a decade, we have been sounding the alarm on behalf of our members that provide a vital service in the continuum of care,” said nuclear medicine technologist Bashir Jalloh (above) in a CUPE statement. Jalloh is President of CUPE 5430, Saskatchewan’s largest healthcare union which represents medical technologists in a variety of specialties. “Now, as waitlists grow, we are at risk of more disruptions of services and communities on bypass for critical care at a time when wait lists are as long as ever.” Clinical laboratory leaders in the US can gain valuable insights from the struggle with shortages taking place in Canada. (Photo copyright: Regina-Leader Post.)
Chrobak noted the following reasons for the deficit of MLTs in Canada:
An aging workforce: Many current lab scientists are over age 50, signaling a “potential shortage of medical laboratory technologists when seasoned professionals retire.”
Lack of awareness and representation: Other healthcare fields may benefit by being in the public spotlight, while “opportunities and rewards” of a medical lab technology career may not be apparent to job seekers.
Insufficient funding for educational programs: The need for laboratory professionals may supersede “scarce healthcare dollars that fund education programs.”
Barriers to registration: International applicants may be challenged in “recognition of existing field-of-practice competencies.”
Solutions: Improve Recruitment, Retention
To address the MLT shortages across Canada, CAMLPR aims to step up the registration of people interested in the medical laboratory profession through a project in partnership with the Canadian government called the Flexible Pathways to Registration for Medical Laboratory Technologists. The goal is to develop competency standards for entering the profession, ease the registration process, and increase the supply of qualified health professionals in Canada, according to a news release.
This is not the first time Dark Daily has covered Canada’s lab worker shortages.
In “Clinical Laboratories Suffer During the ‘Great Resignation’,” we reported how the so-called “Great Resignation” caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on clinical laboratory staffs, creating shortages of pathologists as well as of medical technologists, medical laboratory technicians, and other lab scientists who are vital to clinical laboratories in both Canada and the US.
And in “Lab Staffing Shortages Reaching Dire Levels,” Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report, noted that CAP Today characterized the current lab staffing shortage as going “from simmer to rolling boil” and that demand for medical technologists and other certified laboratory scientists far exceeds the available supply. Consequently, many labs use overtime and temp workers to handle daily testing, a strategy that has led to staff burnout and a high turnover rate.
Shortages in other areas of Canadian healthcare are on the rise as well, which we covered in “Number of Unfilled Medical Residencies Increases in Alberta and Other Areas of Canada.” We reported that, according to the Angus Reid Institute, approximately half of all Canadians cannot find a doctor or get a timely appointment with their current doctor. And that, just like in many parts of America, certain provinces are experiencing severe medical staffing shortages that includes clinical laboratories and pathology groups.
Global Insights May Offer Ideas
Dark Daily’s coverage of healthcare industry challenges in Canada, the US, and other countries is aimed at helping clinical laboratory managers and pathologists understand challenges faced by government-run healthcare systems, where there is constant pressure on the government to provide adequate funding. Capital is needed to modernize and expand hospitals and clinics. At the same time, there is need to expand training opportunities to solve the shortage of clinical laboratory scientists, medical laboratory and imaging technologists, doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals.
The insights gained by studying these healthcare systems may be of value to US-based hospitals and medical laboratories that face their own worker recruitment and retention issues.
Norwegian researchers reviewed large clinical trials of six common cancer screenings, including clinical laboratory tests, but some experts question the findings
Cancer screenings are a critical tool for diagnosis and treatment. But how much do they actually extend the lives of patients? According to researchers at the University of Oslo in Norway, not by much. They recently conducted a review and meta-analysis of 18 long-term clinical trials, five of the six most commonly used types of cancer screening—including two clinical laboratory tests—and found that with few exceptions, the screenings did not significantly extend lifespans.
The 18 long-term clinical trials included in the study were randomized trials that collectively included a total of 2.1 million participants. Median follow-up periods of 10 to 15 years were used to gauge estimated lifetime gain and mortality.
“The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy,” the researchers wrote in their published paper.
The researchers noted, however, that their analysis does not suggest all screenings should be abandoned. They also acknowledged that some lives are saved by screenings.
“Without screening, these patients may have died of cancer because it would have been detected at a later, incurable stage,” the scientists wrote, MedPage Today reported. “Thus, these patients experience a gain in lifetime.”
Still, some independent experts questioned the validity of the findings.
Gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD (above), a professor at the University of Oslo in Norway led the research into cancer screenings. In their JAMA Internal Medicine paper, he and his team wrote, “The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy may extend life by approximately three months; lifetime gain for other screening tests appears to be unlikely or uncertain.” How their findings might affect clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology screening for cancer remains to be seen. (Photo copyright: University of Oslo.)
Pros and Cons of Cancer Screening
The clinical trials, according to MedPage Today and Oncology Nursing News covered the following tests:
Mammography screening for breast cancer (two trials).
As reported in these trials, “colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy prolonged lifetime by 110 days, while fecal testing and mammography screening did not prolong life,” the researchers wrote. “An extension of 37 days was noted for prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen testing and 107 days with lung cancer screening using computed tomography, but estimates are uncertain.”
The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends certain types of screening tests to detect cancers and pre-cancers before they can spread, thus improving the chances for survival.
The ACS advises screenings for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and cervical cancer regardless of whether the individual is considered high risk. Lung cancer screenings are advised for people with a history of smoking. Men who are 45 to 50 or older should discuss the pros and cons of prostate cancer screening with their healthcare providers, the ACS states.
A CNN report about the University of Oslo study noted that the benefits and drawbacks of cancer screening have long been well known to doctors.
“Some positive screening results are false positives, which can lead to unnecessary anxiety as well as additional screening that can be expensive,” CNN reported. “Tests can also give a false negative and thus a false sense of security. Sometimes too, treatment can be unnecessary, resulting in a net harm rather than a net benefit, studies show.”
In their JAMA paper, the University of Oslo researchers wrote, “The critical question is whether the benefits for the few are sufficiently large to warrant the associated harms for many. It is entirely possible that multicancer detection blood tests do save lives and warrant the attendant costs and harms. But we will never know unless we ask,” CNN reported.
Hidden Impact on Cancer Mortality
ACS Chief Scientific Officer William Dahut, MD, told CNN that screenings may have an impact on cancer mortality in ways that might not be apparent from randomized trials. He noted that there’s been a decline in deaths from cervical cancer and prostate cancer since doctors began advising routine testing.
“Cancer screening was never really designed to increase longevity,” Dahut said. “Screenings are really designed to decrease premature deaths from cancer.” For example, “if a person’s life expectancy at birth was 80, a cancer screening may prevent their premature death at 65, but it wouldn’t necessarily mean they’d live to be 90 instead of the predicted 80,” CNN reported.
Dahut told CNN that fully assessing the impact of cancer screenings on life expectancy would require a clinical trial larger than those in the new study, and one that followed patients “for a very long time.”
“From its title, one would have expected this paper to be based on analysis of individual lifetime data. However, it is not,” he wrote in a compilation of expert commentary from the UK’s Science Media Center. “The paper’s conclusions are based on arithmetic manipulation of relative rates of all-cause mortality in some of the screening trials. It is therefore difficult to give credence to the claim that screening largely does not extend expected lifetime.”
He also questioned the inclusion of one particular trial in the University of Oslo study—the Canadian National Breast Screening Study—“as there is now public domain evidence of subversion of the randomization in this trial,” he added.
Another expert, Leigh Jackson, PhD, of the University of Exeter in the UK, described the University of Oslo study as “methodologically sound with some limitations which the authors clearly state.”
But he observed that “the focus on 2.1 million individuals is slightly misleading. The study considered many different screening tests and 2.1 million was indeed the total number of included patients, however, no calculation included that many people.”
Jackson also characterized the length of follow-up as a limitation. “This may have limited the amount of data included and also not considering longer follow-up may tend to underestimate the effects of screening,” he said.
This published study—along with the range of credible criticisms offered by other scientists—demonstrates how analysis of huge volumes of data is making it possible to tease out useful new insights. Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists can expect to see other examples of researchers assembling large quantities of data across different areas of medicine. This huge pools of data will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of many medical procedures that have been performed for years with a belief that they are helpful.
HIMSS names SMC a ‘world leader’ in digital pathology and awards the South Korean Healthcare provider Stage 7 DIAM status
Anatomic pathologists and clinical laboratory managers in hospitals know that during surgery, time is of the essence. While the patient is still on the surgical table, biopsies must be sent to the lab to be frozen and sectioned before going to the surgical pathologist for reading. Thus, shortening time to answer for frozen sections is a significant benefit.
This effort in surgical pathology is part of a larger story of the digital transformation underway across all service lines at this hospital. For years, SMC has been on track to become one of the world’s “intelligent hospitals,” and it is succeeding. In February, SMC became the first healthcare provider to achieve Stage 7 in the HIMSS Digital Imaging Adoption Model (DIAM), which “assesses an organization’s capabilities in the delivery of medical imaging,” Healthcare IT News reported.
As pathologists and clinical laboratory leaders know, implementation of digital pathology is no easy feat. So, it’s noteworthy that SMC has brought together disparate technologies to reduce turnaround times, and that the medical center has caught the eye of leading health information technology (HIT) organizations.
“The digital pathology system established by the pathology department and SMC’s information strategy team could be one of the good examples of the fourth industrial revolution model applied to a hospital system,” anatomic pathologist Kee Taek Jang, MD (above), Professor of Pathology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center told Healthcare IT News. Clinical laboratory leaders and surgical pathologists understand the value digital pathology can bring to faster turnaround times. (Photo copyright: Samsung Medical Center.)
Anatomic Pathologists Can Read Frozen Sections on Their Smartphones
Prior to implementation of its 5G digital pathology system, surgeons and their patients waited as much as 20 minutes for anatomic pathologists to traverse SMC’s medical campus to reach the healthcare provider’s cancer center diagnostic reading room, Healthcare IT News reported.
Now, SMC’s integrated digital pathology system—which combines slide scanners, analysis software, and desktop computers with a 5G network—has enabled a “rapid imaging search across the hospital,” Healthcare IT News noted. Surgical pathologists can analyze tissue samples faster and from remote locations on digital devices that are convenient to them at the time, a significant benefit to patient care.
“The system has been effective in reducing the turnaround time as pathologists can now attend to frozen test consultations on their smartphone or tablet device via 5G network anywhere in the hospital,” Jean-Hyoung Lee, SMC’s Manager of IT Infrastructure, told Healthcare IT News which noted these system results:
TAT decreased from 20 minutes to 10 minutes.
Transferring scans of large frozen tissues up to three gigabyte in size is now possible through the 5G network.
Additionally, through the 5G network, pathologists can efficiently access CT scans and MRI data on proton therapy cancer treatments. Prior to the change, the doctors had to download the image files in SMC’s Proton Therapy Center, according to a news release from KT Corporation, a South Korean telecommunications company that began working with SMC on building the 5G-connected digital pathology system in 2019.
DIAM is an approach for gauging an organization’s medical imaging delivery capabilities. To achieve Stage 7—External Image Exchange and Patient Engagement—healthcare providers must also have achieved all capabilities outlined in Stages 5 and 6.
In addition, the following must also have been adopted:
The majority of image-producing service areas are exchanging and/or sharing images and reports and/or clinical notes based on recognized standards with care organizations of all types, including local, regional, or national health information exchanges.
The application(s) used in image-producing service areas support multidisciplinary interactive collaboration.
Patients can make appointments, and access reports, images, and educational content specific to their individual situation online.
Patients are able to electronically upload, download, and share their images.
“This is the most comprehensive use of integrated digital pathology we have seen,” Andrew Pearce, HIMSS VP Analytics and Global Advisory Lead, told Healthcare IT News.
SMC’s Manager of IT Planning Seungho Lim told Healthcare IT News the medical center’s goal is to become “a global advanced intelligent hospital through digital health innovation.” The plan is to offer, he added, “super-gap digital services that prioritize non-contact communication and cutting-edge technology.”
For pathologists and clinical laboratory leaders, SMC’s commitment to 5G to move digital pathology data is compelling. And its recognition by HIMSS could inspire more healthcare organization to make changes in medical laboratory workflows. SMC, and perhaps other South Korean healthcare providers, will likely continue to draw attention for their healthcare IT achievements.
New study analyzes the dramatic decline in the utilization of imaging diagnostics between 2008 and 2014 and suggests that reductions in imaging use could be the result of changes in federal policy, increased deductibles, and cost-cutting focuses
Anatomic pathologists have experienced sustained cuts to reimbursements for both technical component and professional component services during the past eight to 10 years. But what has not happened to pathology is a 33% decline in the volume of biopsies referred to diagnosis. Yet that is what some studies say has happened to imaging reimbursement since 2006.
Using Medicare data for Part B imaging procedures covering the years 2001 to 2014, researchers at a major university identified that, beginning in 2006, the total reimbursement for imaging procedures declined at a steady rate throughout the following eight years covered by the study. It is unclear what implications the finding of this study of imaging utilization might predict for the utilization of advance anatomic pathology services.
Routine Use of Imaging in Diagnostics is Slowing Down
The researchers calculated utilization rates for “advanced” imaging modalities and component relative value unit (RVU) rates for all imaging modalities. They determined that trends in imaging rates and RVU rates rose between 2000 and 2008, but then sharply declined from 2008 to 2014. The researchers theorized that the reduction might have been due to changes in federal policy, increasing deductibles, and focus on cost-cutting by hospitals and healthcare providers.
Levin, along with Thomas Jefferson University associates Vijay M. Rao, MD, FACR, current Chair of Radiology, and Laurence Parker, PhD, Associate Professor of Radiology; and University of Wisconsin-Madison statistics Professor Charles D. Palit, PhD, argue that the decrease in imaging orders might reduce diagnostic costs, but also could negatively impact surgical pathologists, radiologists, medical researchers, and patients themselves.
In a Modern Healthcare article, Levin states that the reduction in utilization of imaging and radiology could be a slippery slope leading to decreased access to life-saving diagnostic tools that could leave patients “not getting the scans they probably need.”
What’s Fueling the Multi-Year Decline in Utilization of Imaging and Radiology?
Using data acquired from Medicare part B databases, the authors reported that total reimbursements for NDI peaked at $11.9 billion in 2006, but saw a steep decline of 33% to just over $8 billion in 2015. They attribute some of this decline as a result of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which went into effect in 2007, as well as other cuts to NDI reimbursement funding. Reimbursement to radiologists, according to Levin et al, dropped by more than 19.5%, and reimbursement to cardiologists dropped nearly 45% between 2006 and 2015.
Surgical pathologists may see parallels in the total reimbursement for imaging during the years 2002-2015 compared to pathology technical component and professional component reimbursement during those same years. Taken from the Thomas Jefferson University study, the graphic above shows “total Part B payments for non-invasive diagnostic imaging to all physicians under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, 2002 to 2015. Vertical axis shows billions of dollars. The abrupt decline in 2007 was due to the Deficit Reduction Act. The declines in 2009, 2010, and 2011 were due largely to code bundling in, respectively, transthoracic echocardiography, radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging, and CT of the abdomen and pelvis.” (Caption and image copyright: Thomas Jefferson University.)
According to Levin and Rao, the Choosing Wisely initiative was intended “to reduce the use of tests and treatments that were felt to be overused or often unnecessary.” Imaging examinations were included in the list of tests that were deemed to be “of limited value” in many situations. Levin and Rao suggested that there might have been a need to curtail testing pushed by payers, policymakers, and physicians at the time, but that the Choosing Wisely initiative could have added to a decline in imaging testing spurred on by the confusion physicians felt when attempting to access unclear scenarios and recommendations for the 124 imaging tests listed.
Imaging Decline Could Have Unintended Consequences for Providers and Patients
In a Radiology Business article, Levin outlined some of the unintended consequences facing healthcare due to the reduction in imaging utilization. He states that “private imaging facilities are starting to close down” and “MRI and other advanced imaging exams are beginning to shift into hospital outpatient facilities.” He predicts that the shift from private facilities to hospital facilities could cause imaging costs to increase for customers and healthcare providers.
Levin suggests that Medicare could “raise the fees a little and make the private offices a little more viable.” The profit margins, Levin argues, “are so low right now that you basically can’t run a business.” Medicare as a program might be seeing huge savings, Levin notes in several articles, but physicians, laboratories, and patients are feeling the pinch as a result.
In an interview with Physicians Practice, Rao echoed Levin’s concerns. “Policy makers lack understanding of the value of imaging and spectrum of the services provided by radiologists,” he declared. “On an institutional level, under the new payment models, radiology is transitioning to a cost center and radiologists often don’t have a seat at the table.”
Rao points out that this devaluing of radiologists’ work affects not only healthcare facilities, but patients themselves. Radiologists provide “major contributions to patient care by making accurate diagnoses, and doing minimally invasive treatments given many technological advances leading to appropriate management and improved outcomes,” he argues. How long before Pathology follows a similar track?
Balancing Cost and Quality in Testing Without Sacrificing Patient Needs
The fear seems to be that the push to lower costs by eliminating unnecessary imaging is inhibiting radiologists and diagnosticians from providing necessary imaging for patients. And that delaying diagnoses affects the ability of healthcare providers to provide adequate and timely patient care. Rao suggests, however, that physicians’ use of medical imaging could simply be evolving.
“There were other factors that also helped limit the rapid growth, such as greater attention by physicians to practice guidelines, concerns about radiation exposure to patients, and the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009,” Rao noted in a Thomas Jefferson University news release. “However, we expect that additional changes, such as the advent of lung cancer and other screening programs, and the use of computerized clinical decision support, will continue to promote and support appropriate use of imaging technology.”
The drive to reduce healthcare expenditures should not be dismissed. We may soon see parallels in the rise and fall of imaging utilization for genetic testing, surgical pathology, and other new and expensive clinical laboratory technologies as policymakers attempt to balance increased spending against the clinical value of these diagnostic tools.
