This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (46)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Radiologic Imaging  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging  • Ultrasonography  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Clare M. C. Tempany, MD; Barbara J. McNeil, MD, PhD

JAMA. 2001;285:562-567.

In the 21st century, diseases will be diagnosed and treated using increasingly less invasive, more sophisticated imaging and image-guided procedures. During the past 100 years, the field of biomedical imaging has developed from Roentgen's original discovery of the x-ray to the imaging tools of today, such as magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, and ultrasonography. The benefits of using these sophisticated noninvasive imaging tools are already evident: more accurate and timely diagnosis of disease has translated into improved patient care. Recent advances in imaging research have shown the potential to change many aspects of clinical medicine within the next decade. Major new areas of research focus on development of the molecular, functional, cellular, and genetic imaging tools of the future, aided by new information technology and image fusion/integration capabilities. Image-guided therapy is growing rapidly, with advances in computer science, technology, and noninvasive treatment methods, such as focused ultrasonography. Undoubtedly, these and other new imaging techniques will enhance the ability to accurately diagnose and recognize disease and allow understanding of the molecular mechanisms of diseases and their respective responses to therapy. Given this explosion in new technologies, the next 25 years promise to result in dramatic changes in diagnostic imaging, particularly with respect to detection and recognition of disease.

Author Affiliations: Departments of Radiology (Drs Tempany and McNeil) and Health Care Policy (Dr McNeil), Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

February 7, 2001
JAMA. 2001;285(5):665-666.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Combined endorectal and phased-array MRI in the prediction of pelvic lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer.
Wang et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2006;186:743-748.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Inpatient Radiology Utilization: Trends over the Past Decade
Matin et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2006;186:7-11.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Prospects for the Future of Child Health Through Research
Feigin
JAMA 2005;294:1373-1379.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Molecular Imaging in the Clinical Arena
Jaffer and Weissleder
JAMA 2005;293:855-862.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Vascular Guide Wire Navigation with a Magnetic Guidance System: Experimental Results in a Phantom
Schiemann et al.
Radiology 2004;232:475-481.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Noninvasive Detection of Clinically Occult Lymph-Node Metastases in Prostate Cancer
Harisinghani et al.
NEJM 2003;348:2491-2499.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Predictive genetic tests and health system costs
Morgan et al.
CMAJ 2003;168:989-991.
FULL TEXT  

Lipid Lowering by Simvastatin Induces Regression of Human Atherosclerotic Lesions: Two Years' Follow-Up by High-Resolution Noninvasive Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Corti et al.
Circulation 2002;106:2884-2887.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Hidden Barriers to Improvement in the Quality of Care
McNeil
NEJM 2001;345:1612-1620.
FULL TEXT  

The National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering: History, Status, and Potential Impact
Hendee et al.
Radiology 2002;222:12-18.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT