Live data from Hacker News

One whole-body MRI could replace multiple cancer scans

pharmatimes.com

211–220 of 236 posts

Re: One whole-body MRI could replace multiple cancer scans

#211
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obtaining the delta from two different images is actually non trivial. And contrary to what HN thinks, not every problem is trivially solved by machine learning. Small point aside: an ultrasound scan -- even if it was every feasible at home -- would not be an MRI. MRI means you use the spin echo and relaxation of nucleii (mostly protons for medical MRI). It is not a generic word for "please give me a 3d image". Words…

You are exaggerating just a bit: https://info.blockimaging.com/bid/92623/mri-machine-cost-and... Still not something you’d have in your home, but not nearly 10M dollars. Maybe you can have one in your community medical center?

These are old MRIs using low fields and limited slew rates. They will give you poor resolution, limited dynamic range and long scan durations (Which makes is even harder to avoid artefacts from patient motion). Check the price tags on new 3T or even 7T machines and they come close to the 10M I mentioned.

Re: One whole-body MRI could replace multiple cancer scans

#212
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two reasons I think this is not the way to go: First, the cost would be insane. A century of monthly MRIs is 1200 scans per person, or 1.2B scans to finish your hypothetical dataset. We pay about $US 550/hr for scanner time, using a research scanner that's subsidized (i.e., we're just covering costs, not making a profit). The article doesn't say how long the scan is. You can burn as much scanner time as you want chas…

> You can burn as much scanner time as you want chasing resolution/quality, but an hour seems reasonable. Out of curiosity, what determines the speed of the MRI scan? Are massive improvements theoretically possible?

Physics, partly.

MRI is all about the protons. Under normal conditions, the protons in your body are all spinning ('precessing') around their own axis, but they're disorganized: each proton's axis is pointing in a different direction. They're like little wobbly tops drifting through space.

In an MRI scanner, the strong static magnetic field (B_0) forces the protons into alignment, so that their rotational axes are now lined up with the field's north-south axis. The field needs to be very strong for this to work, which is why MRI systems usually have expensive superconducting magnets.

Now that we've created a nice organized system, we're going to destroy it. A quick radio frequency burst energizes the protons and 'knocks them over' so they're no longer aligned with the field. Once the pulse ends, they 'relax' and realign themselves with the magnetic field, releasing some of that energy as they do so.

Sensitive detectors around the subjects' head detect those emissions and use it to determine how long it took for protons to realign themselves with the different components of the magnetic field. T1 is the time (or formally, the time constant) needed for relaxation parallel to the static field; T2 is the time needed for protons to relax to the transverse component. The T1 relaxation time for fluids is on the order of seconds, while fatty issue is more like 50-150ms. In the brain, grey matter has a relaxation time of 1.3 sec, but the fat-coated white matter relaxes much faster (~0.8), which makes T1 images very useful for examining brain anatomy.

Hopefully, this little crash course has revealed one of the bottlenecks in MRI: the actual signal being measured is slow.

Of course, I've massively oversimplified things and didn't explain at all how we localize these responses. The proton's precession frequency depends on the magnetic field, so by changing the static field slightly (across space), we can measure T1 at different locations, and sometimes even overlap measurements. You can't switch the field too fast though, or you'll start to induce currents in the subjects' nerves, which hurts. This is actually the principle behind a brain stimulation technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation.

There is still tons of room for improvement. Stronger fields lower the relaxation time, so the scans are faster (and the relaxation time estimates are better). Improvements in the RF coils help a lot too: the signal being measured is very faint and there's a lot of self-cancellation. On the software side of things, a lot of effort has already gone into designing clever pulse sequences—and the sophisticated signal processing needed to interpret their results.

Things will obviously continue to get better; I was just looking at some data from ten years ago and it looks awful compared to more recent scans.

That said, the "just use machine learning!!!" tone in some of the comments is kinda frustrating. Most of the people in this field aren't dummies--if it were as easy as downloading PyTorch, someone would have done it already. It turns out that the biology and physics are both stupendously complicated (and fascinating too).

Re: One whole-body MRI could replace multiple cancer scans

#213
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that scale, scans wouldn’t cost $550 per hour. “Because it’s too expensive,” seems like a great opportunity for some clever startup to figure out a way to make it less expensive. Computers used to take up entire rooms. Flying across the country used to be insanely expensive. Cell phones used to cost a ton of money per minute. Reducing the cost of scanning, or developing entirely new scanning tech isn’t science fic…

$98/scan in Japan. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/...

The doctor gets $98. The $550/hr price I quoted is for a research scanner where no one is even trying to turn a profit; they just want to pay off the machine and its operating costs.

The machines themselves are not magically cheaper in Japan; they're just being paid for through some other route. If the scanner were somehow free (gov't grant?), 98$ seems pretty reasonable for the labor.

Re: One whole-body MRI could replace multiple cancer scans

#214
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that scale, scans wouldn’t cost $550 per hour. “Because it’s too expensive,” seems like a great opportunity for some clever startup to figure out a way to make it less expensive. Computers used to take up entire rooms. Flying across the country used to be insanely expensive. Cell phones used to cost a ton of money per minute. Reducing the cost of scanning, or developing entirely new scanning tech isn’t science fic…

$98/scan in Japan. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/...

That is just for your neck. So a tiny imaging volume on a cheaper machine. Using that as a price point for full body imageing is disingenuous.

Re: One whole-body MRI could replace multiple cancer scans

#216
post #208
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can burn as much scanner time as you want chasing resolution/quality, but an hour seems reasonable. Out of curiosity, what determines the speed of the MRI scan? Are massive improvements theoretically possible?

ML & better imaging algorithms should help a lot. Times could be reduced from 45min to 15min [1]. Scanning a beating heart can be reduced from 4min+ to 25sec [2]. Also ML can aid in comparing past images to current ones [3], which would give you quick insights into what changed. Two ideas for time reduction I haven't seen discussed but perhaps might also help: 1. Don't scan at the same resolution across the whole bod…

Your first idea is pretty common. There's usually a very coarse "localizer" scan at the beginning of a session, which is used to set the field of view for subsequent runs. The whole body scans are (at least in theory) meant to find tiny things that are asymptotic though, so I'm not sure that searching through (say) 10mm slabs will help much.

Open, upright scanners do exist, but they're lousy. The goal of the (big) magnet is to produce an incredibly strong, uniform magnetic field. Due to physics, this is much, much easier to do with a torus-shaped magnet than a 'U'shaped one. Even so, there's one point ('isocenter') where the magnetic field is maximally flat and the quality will be best. The gurney moves to point the region of interest (e.g., your head) right to the isocenter. That's why the tech often uses a little light or laser to find your position, rather than just asking you to scooch. Motion is also, as you alluded, a huge problem.

I hate to be discouraging, but I am excited to see people actually thinking about MRI on HN!.

Re: One whole-body MRI could replace multiple cancer scans

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phillips and GE both have new models that use a lot less (10-20L vs. 1000L) of helium. I think they're only 1.5T though. The Phillips model is called "BlueSeal"; I can't remember GE's, but it's something goofy.

GE's name for this tech is Freelium[1]. [1] https://www3.gehealthcare.com/~/media/rsna-2016-press-kit-as...

Yes! Thanks! (I knew it was slightly goofy)

Re: One whole-body MRI could replace multiple cancer scans

#218
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two reasons I think this is not the way to go: First, the cost would be insane. A century of monthly MRIs is 1200 scans per person, or 1.2B scans to finish your hypothetical dataset. We pay about $US 550/hr for scanner time, using a research scanner that's subsidized (i.e., we're just covering costs, not making a profit). The article doesn't say how long the scan is. You can burn as much scanner time as you want chas…

6B per year to figure out which cancers are malignant with one scan seems like a fairly decent price.

For comparison, the entire NSF budget for next year is around $7B. That would just about cover the imaging component of building a speculative and ethically-questionable data set, assuming someone else pays for the biopsies, analysis, and staff.

(The NIH does have more money, but also funds trials, vaccines, and other stuff that we probably don't want to cancel for a century).

Re: One whole-body MRI could replace multiple cancer scans

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word 'cost' seems to be confusing things. Both options have risks and both options can kill you. Namely: A) Doing nothing may allow a problem to fester until it either kills you or becomes detectable with standard treatments. However, you have no exposure whatsoever to side effects, infections, or medical errors for the things that are missed. B) Doing whole-body MRI 'fishing expeditions' decreases the risk of mi…

Speaking of blood tests - where does the uncertainty come in there? Is the measuring equipment noisy, so they might detect some marker when it is actually not present? Or is it that you can actually have a high concentration of whatever they are looking for in your blood but it somehow just be normal for you because you are an outlier? I tend to think it is the former but can anyone clarify?

Uncertainty is everywhere!

The normative values aren't handed down from God, or some definite evidence of health. Instead, they were the typical range (mean ± 3SD, percentiles, etc) from a sample of healthy people, possibly matched for demographics (e.g., sex). Suppose we set each range so that it contains 99/100 healthy people. It would only take about 70 independent tests before you have a 50:50 chance of being outside that range on one of them--and that's assuming you're an exact match for the reference population.

There's also error in the measurements themselves. Some of it is errors in the actual procedure or preparation: cross-contamination between samples, dust blows into the well, etc. However, many of the tests are stochastic too. Some measure binding between stuff in your blood (e.g., antibodies) and a "probe" that's designed to detect them. This usually works, but non-specific binding can cause false positives (the probe binds something that is similar to, but not quite the same as, the target). Other conditions can cause false negatives. The "front line" screenings are usually meant to be cheap, fast, and biased towards false positives.

You might be interested in a fairly common statistics question about screening. Suppose you had a test that is 99% reliable: 99% of sick people test positive; 99% of healthy people test negative. The disease itself is somewhat rare--only 1% of people have it. If you test positive, what are the odds you're actually sick? The answer[0] will explain why we don't test or scan people for tons of rare diseases, even with very reliable (and free) tests.

[0] ʎʇɟᴉɟ-ʎʇɟᴉɟ

Re: One whole-body MRI could replace multiple cancer scans

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NHS isn't a for profit healthcare system; and they'll break even earlier on the early detection and diagnosis as since it covers you for life treating you early is less expensive then treating you later when the treatment costs would be higher. Considerations would be different if the MRI scanner was running as for profit; or you could switch coverage so the later costs would be borne by someone else.

treating you early is less expensive then treating you later when the treatment costs would be higher. This is true retrospectively, for anyone who it turns out really has the disease. But studies show that prospectively (when you don't know if somebody actually has a given disease), the cost of preventative care - including follow-up tests and unnecessary treatments - exceeds the benefit that you outlined. EDIT: add…

This is a little circular, in that we do the preventive care that we actually do is the sort that we think is effective.

If it were obvious that these whole-body scans were cost effective, the NHS would have people lining up.

Post reply on HN