Michael D Kuo1, Shota Yamamoto. 1. Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1721, USA. michaelkuo@mednet.ucla.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The bedrock of radiology has been radiologic-pathologic (Rad-Path) correlation: the correlation of imaging to ex vivo gross and histopathologic findings of disease. This classical view is being challenged by our increasing understanding of the molecular basis of disease, particularly in oncology. The traditional lines in diagnostic sciences have blurred with the development of new in vitro diagnostic molecular assays and molecular imaging methods as well as the growing evidence that conventional diagnostic imaging has potential use in understanding genomic properties of disease. The purpose of this article is to make the case for a fundamental shift to the next generation of Rad-Path correlation (Rad-Path 2.0). CONCLUSION: The future success of radiology will require not only continued technologic advances in physical and life sciences but also the convergence of previously distinct diagnostic disciplines.
OBJECTIVE: The bedrock of radiology has been radiologic-pathologic (Rad-Path) correlation: the correlation of imaging to ex vivo gross and histopathologic findings of disease. This classical view is being challenged by our increasing understanding of the molecular basis of disease, particularly in oncology. The traditional lines in diagnostic sciences have blurred with the development of new in vitro diagnostic molecular assays and molecular imaging methods as well as the growing evidence that conventional diagnostic imaging has potential use in understanding genomic properties of disease. The purpose of this article is to make the case for a fundamental shift to the next generation of Rad-Path correlation (Rad-Path 2.0). CONCLUSION: The future success of radiology will require not only continued technologic advances in physical and life sciences but also the convergence of previously distinct diagnostic disciplines.
Authors: Alda L Tam; Howard J Lim; Ignacio I Wistuba; Anobel Tamrazi; Michael D Kuo; Etay Ziv; Stephen Wong; Albert J Shih; Robert J Webster; Gregory S Fischer; Sunitha Nagrath; Suzanne E Davis; Sarah B White; Kamran Ahrar Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Christoph A Karlo; Pier Luigi Di Paolo; Joshua Chaim; A Ari Hakimi; Irina Ostrovnaya; Paul Russo; Hedvig Hricak; Robert Motzer; James J Hsieh; Oguz Akin Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: A Jaju; E I Hwang; M Kool; D Capper; L Chavez; S Brabetz; C Billups; Y Li; M Fouladi; R J Packer; S M Pfister; J M Olson; L A Heier Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Emily A Aherne; Linda M Pak; Debra A Goldman; Mithat Gonen; William R Jarnagin; Amber L Simpson; Richard K Do Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-10
Authors: Neema Jamshidi; Daniel J Margolis; Steven Raman; Jiaoti Huang; Robert E Reiter; Michael D Kuo Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Amani Arthur; Edward W Johnston; Jessica M Winfield; Matthew D Blackledge; Robin L Jones; Paul H Huang; Christina Messiou Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 5.738