The implications of digital imaging for
clinical practice
Davide Caramella
Department of Oncology, Transplants and New
Technologies in Medicine, University of Pisa, Italy
Address for correspondence:
Professor Davide Caramella
Associate Professor of Radiology
Department of Oncology, Transplants and New
Technologies in Medicine, University of Pisa
Via Roma, 67, 1-56100 Pisa, Italy
Tel: +39 050 992 509 Fax: +39 050 551 461
Email: caramella@do.med.unipi.it
Introduction
The introduction of digital imaging over 30 years ago
has dramatically broadened the clinical applications of
radiology. Not only have new radiological modalities
emerged, making it possible to study finer anatomical
details, elucidating pathology as well as function, but
the workflow in radiology departments has also
been revolutionized.
The Picture Archiving Communication System (PACS)
concept was first proposed in 1982. The expectation
was that it would solve most of the problems of
conventional radiology by allowing efficient image
management and thus achieving organizational and
economic advantages, ultimately improving patient
care. In reality, things were not so simple, mainly
because the technology of the time was too immature
to allow the implementation of filmless operations
within hospitals.
PACS evolution
The paradox of first-generation PACS was that these
systems were planned by a technologically motivated
computer scientist at a time when information
technology resources were still painfully inadequate for
meeting the stringent requirements of the practice of
radiology. Other reasons contributing to the failure of
first-generation PACS were the legal framework in
many countries (which were unprepared to cope with
the novelties of the digital revolution in medicine),
widespread customer dissatisfaction with the
rudimentary systems that were initially introduced to
the market and - last but not least - the high cost of
the systems.
The evaluation of health care costs is not an easy
subject and there are several areas of controversy.
These include the determination of benefits (both
payable and intangible) and the inclusion of indirect
(or 'hidden') costs and benefits.When evaluating PACS, the most common pitfall is to calculate costs and
estimate savings taking into account only the radiology
department. This narrow evaluation will reveal only that
a changeover to digital systems entails additional costs,
with very few savings to be expected (savings in films
alone are of course insufficient to justify the massive
investment needed to implement PACS from scratch).
However, such an evaluation neglects the substantial
savings in terms of the increased overall efficiency of
the health care institution that can be achieved thanks
to the integration of the digital management of all
clinical data (including images).
Moreover, there is a rather intriguing and peculiar
economic situation in medicine. In all other economic
sectors, such as industry, banking or insurance,
investments in information technology lead to an
increase in productivity and ultimately to greater
profits. In medicine, on the other hand, the investment
in information technology seems only to increase the
costs, since the revenues of hospitals are largely
independent of their productivity.
![]() |
| Figure 1. The Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) website: www.ihe-europe.org |
All these important changes were prerequisites for the development of the second-generation PACS that have now proven successful in the clinical domain. Today technology is no longer a limiting factor, as highperformance networks are available, standards are universally accepted and national and international laws have been modified to meet the needs arising from the digital revolution.
Radiological reporting
The production of the report is one of the main goals of the entire radiological process and PACS has a relevant (and rapidly evolving) role in this area. The introduction of soft-copy reporting and voice recognition has changed the way radiology is practised. However, there are still questions that need to be fully addressed, such as the diagnostic performance of the radiologist (i.e. reduction of mistakes) and ergonomics (i.e. workstation fatigue), among others.
Without soft-copy reporting, it would not be possible to read effectively the large volumes of data produced by up-to-date acquisition modalities, nor would we have experienced the seamless integration of advanced image processing, 3-4-5-D image analysis, multimodality image fusion, treatment planning and computer-aided diagnosis into the radiological workflow (Figure 2). Finally, reporting at the PACS workstation has made it possible to foresee the systematic use of structured reports, with the potential for reducing the indeterminate nature of many radiological reports, making the information included in our reports 'databasable' items that must be entered unambiguously in order to facilitate all kinds of 'data mining' at a later date.
The impact of these structural changes on the outcome of the radiological process has not yet been fully understood. There is a risk that radiologists will be but passive acceptors of the changes being imposed by technology, rather than being active in planning for changes and steering their implementation. The structured report will change the way radiologists interact with referring colleagues, streamlining the information flow. PACS has already changed this complex relationship - for example, with the distribution of electronic images within hospitals it is clear that the pattern of utilisation of images by clinicians has changed but the details of these changes are still to be fully elucidated.
Radiologists may claim that they provide added value to clinicians by expediting the distribution of images and reports throughout the hospital. But how is this quantified? Have outcome studies been published that justify this assumption? Has the potential for more efficient hospital-wide PACS-mediated informationsharing to reduce medical errors and achieve better patient care been realized?
The distribution of radiological images is no longer confined within the hospital, since in many instances regional PACS are emerging as the best solution for a rapidly consolidating health care sector. This trend will make the term 'teleradiology' obsolete, since teleradiology is progressively becoming just another function of PACS. From a technical point of view, image distribution has been implemented using the web architectural model or the integration of off-line devices, such as CDs, which are often involved in communication with general practitioners. Moreover, many innovative products from the consumer market (e.g. latest-generation mobile phones, tablet PCs, hard drive-based devices) may be tested and adopted for improving the distribution of radiological data.
![]() |
| Figure 3. Outsourcing to an Application Service Provider (ASP) |
Future of PACS
Radiologists are medical professionals who work with images. However, many other medical disciplines are based on imaging or require doctors to conduct imageintensive tasks (surgery, for example). Most PACS include nuclear medicine and radiotherapy, but a great deal of investigational effort will be necessary to define and then meet the specific requirements for integrating pathological images (interactive display of the microscopic fields), endoscopic images (video sequences) and dermatological images into the PACS environment. And still more research will be needed to specify and implement so-called 'surgical PACS'.
All hospitals with PACS have experienced their ability to improve the quality of teaching, both in terms of continuing medical education (e.g. clinico-radiological conferences) and in the specific area of radiological training. The availability of large numbers of images and amounts of clinical data allows ready access to pathological examples, facilitates the construction of multimedia teaching files and prepares physicians to use the powerful resources of e-learning.
![]() |
| Figure 4. The website at www.eurorad.org |
The local radiological archive has ceased to be solely a store for previous examinations kept for legal reasons but has become an active repository of our professional knowledge that is updated at every encounter with the pathologies that we correctly diagnose. In the book PACS and Imaging Informatics, H K Huang has recently introduced the intriguing concept of a medical imaging informatics infrastructure that is designed to take advantage of existing PACS resources, and their image and related data, for large-scale horizontal and longitudinal clinical service, research and education applications that, due to insufficient data, were not previously possible.
This is the future of PACS: one in which traditionally separate decision-support modules will be fully integrated, as well as new developments in the areas of improved reporting strategies, optimized distribution of radiological information to referring doctors and knowledge management applications ranging from e-learning to computer-aided diagnosis.
08-2005 BUY11137949/JB1585/MB001383/OS 8th edition






Special considerations for the radiologist managing old and very old patients
CT-colonography or colonoscopy
- The case for colonoscopy
