Many breast and prostate cancer screenings performed on the nation’s elderly are unnecessary and should not be recommended under current guidelines, according to research published online Jan. 21 in JAMA Oncology.

Researchers from the University of Twente in the Netherlands are currently developing a biopsy robot that they say “combines the best aspects of MRI and ultrasound” to improve the diagnosis of breast cancer and certain muscle diseases.

Low-dose CT screening for lung cancer has a value-adding benefit beyond what’s expected of it: The imaging procedure can help with early detection of interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Not all patients going online to tap the “wisdom of the crowd” for help with difficult diagnoses find what they seek. But a new study shows that some surely do, coming away with medical guidance more helpful than what they got from their own physicians.

Queen Elizabeth I’s famously mysterious advisor John Dee has been demystified, if only slightly, by an x-ray investigation conducted more than four centuries after his death. Or has he? 

The debate over CT radiation dose communications—does discussing the matter with patients lead them to make informed decisions or scare them away from tests they may need?—is just one part of a broader discussion on dose getting a wide national airing in the mainstream press.

Five score and 20 years ago this week—or six score flat, if you prefer—the word went out from William Roentgen’s lab to the world. The publicity came courtesy of an Austrian newspaper. 

A study on the high cost of patient movement during MRI scans released last spring has drawn a thought-provoking letter to the editor of the journal that published the study report. 

According to a recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the use of chest CT in hospital emergency departments (ED) to evaluate respiratory symptoms significantly jumped from 2001 to 2010.

There is sufficient existing literature on which to base clinical decision rules separating patients with apparently minor but clinically serious head trauma—and thus in need of CT neuroimaging and prompt clinical intervention—from similarly alert and responsive head-trauma patients who would be better off avoiding the radiation exposure and the costs.

When preparing comparison studies, reporting “no change”—not “no interval change,” not “stable,” not some other variation on the theme—is the best, clearest and most consistent way for radiologists to communicate an absence of change to referring physicians and, increasingly, patients.

Aside from wasting money and time, too many tests can result in false positives and inappropriate treatment. The Choosing Wisely campaign was thus created to limit wasteful or unnecessary medical tests, treatments and procedures, but one group is looking to expand some of the recommendations already in place.