From a Mental Image to Imaging Function in 3D

Posted on November 15, 2022 by aium1952

I’m an engineer, and I work on developing ultrasound technology. When clinical colleagues describe how they use ultrasound to guide minimally invasive procedures, they will often reach a point in the explanation of the procedure when they say: “then I form a mental image of the anatomy.”

I recently attended a conference in Venice, Italy (the IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium), where researchers have recently used sonar to map the ancient, now-submerged canal system of Venice, uncovering 2000-year-old roads. If we can traverse 2000-year-old Roman roads with sound, why can’t we do the same for minimally invasive procedures? How can we move beyond mental images to guide minimally invasive procedures with 3D images of both anatomy and functional information?

While more than 40 unique minimally invasive procedures are currently performed routinely, image guidance still relies heavily on forms of imaging that use ionizing radiation—for example, fluoroscopy or X-ray computed tomography (CT). For example, more than 1 million percutaneous coronary interventions are performed each year using fluoroscopy.

If the technology that helps us explore underwater ruins or drive on the interstate could be integrated into the instruments that are inserted into the body during minimally invasive procedures, these procedures could then be performed without exposing the patient and staff to radiation. Catheters and guidewires could become devices to guide and monitor the procedure. With the right devices, ultrasound could perform several of these measurements, including 3D anatomical imaging, monitoring blood flow, stiffness, and perhaps even monitoring temperature or pressure. It’s easy to imagine a future in which interventions in cardiovascular diseases—the leading cause of death in the U.S.—are guided by ultrasound or other sensors integrated into the needles, guidewires, and in patches on the outside of the patient’s body.

It’s an exciting time to work in ultrasound technology development because the spaces in which ultrasound can be applied are being stretched in ways that are not possible with other imaging modalities. However, it’s not quite as simple as adding all the sensors to existing devices. All fundamental physical limits on device performance in small spaces must be addressed. For example, an ultrasound transducer is several times less sensitive when sub-millimeter in size in comparison with transducers typically used for non-invasive imaging. Image quality and frame rates must be sufficiently high even with smaller devices.

Imagine if the catheter gives a 3D image of blood flow dynamics surrounding a stenosis, or the guidewire itself can image a chronic occlusion and allows the interventionalist to route the wire around it. Ultrasound-based monitoring patches on the outside of the patient’s body could be integrated with the sensors integrated into the instruments to provide a comprehensive view of the vitals and the instrument location. While imagination is required to envision the future we want, it would be better if we did not have to imagine the anatomy during the procedure. Partnerships between technology developers and clinical experts can enable a future with 3D ultrasound guidance of minimally invasive procedures.

Brooks Lindsey, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University.

Functional Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound

Posted on October 4, 2022 by aium1952

“Hey Hannah – do you think there is much more to discover in ultrasound technology?” Hannah looked at me and…

It was about 30 years ago when I asked this question to a fellow graduate student while crossing the Duke quad. I was in the middle of a daunting doctoral program in ultrasound engineering—vanilla delay-and-sum beamforming had been the norm for many years, and we all knew speckle was a fundamental physics limitation. So what more could be done?

Perhaps it was the Carolina heat, or maybe I was addled from late-night calculations… but my, how short-sighted and naïve I was! Since that time, a host of new technologies and discoveries have proliferated within the ultrasound landscape, with many already making their way into the clinic. And of course, ultrasound has never lost its inherent competitive benefits of safety, mobility, and affordability. The future continues to look bright for our favorite imaging modality.

Today, I’d like to tell you about one of the more ‘niche’ ultrasound applications – functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound (fTCD). fTCD is an extension of transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD). Simply put, TCD is pulsed-wave Doppler of the basal cerebral arteries. Recently, a great clinical introduction to transcranial Doppler (TCD) was given on the Sonography Lounge.

The “functional” aspect of fTCD refers to monitoring changes in cerebral perfusion during neural activation by a functional task. These tasks could include motor, sensory, or cognitive stimuli. The fTCD response is based on neurovascular coupling – essentially, the link between neural activity and cerebral blood flow. Neurovascular coupling is something we don’t completely understand, but certainly something we can observe. One of the simplest (and most famous) examples is the increase in posterior cerebral artery blood flow velocity in response to a perceived visual change.

fTCD serves as a natural complement to other perfusion imaging modalities such as fMRI, PET, and fNIRS. The high temporal resolution (~100 Hz), anatomical target (deep branches off the circle of Willis), amenity to motion (robust during movement tasks), and safety couple well with the spatial and temporal extent and limits of these other modalities. Interestingly, because of these advantages, fTCD is being used in psychology and neuroscience research.

What medical information can fTCD results give us? Clinically, the change in cerebral blood flow might indicate hemispheric lateralization, help monitor intracranial pressure, show potential for stroke recovery due to somatosensory activation, and even predict preclinical Alzheimer’s disease – to name only a few! A wide range of clinical applications makes this easy-to-learn technique a tool with powerful potential.

By the way, how did Hannah (not her real name) answer my question? She just looked at me and laughed!

Greg Bashford, PhD, PE, is a Professor and Biomedical Engineer at the University of Nebraska.

Comment below, or, AIUM members, continue the conversation on Connect, the AIUM’s online community to share your experience.

Using AI and Ultrasound to Diagnose COVID-19 Faster

Posted on August 11, 2020 by aium1952

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly identified virus that has caused a recent outbreak of respiratory illnesses starting from an isolated event to a global pandemic. As of July 2020, there are over 2.8 million confirmed COVID-19 cases in the U.S. and over 11.4 million worldwide. In the United States alone, over 130,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, with no end in sight. A major cause of this rapid and seemingly endless expansion can be traced back to the inefficiency and shortage of testing kits that offer accurate results in a timely manner. The lack of optimized tools necessary for rapid mass testing produces a ripple effect that includes the health of your loved ones, jobs, education, and on the national level, a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but artificial intelligence and ultrasound may help.

STATE OF ART IN DIAGNOSIS

Prof. Alper Yilmaz, PhD Currently, there are two types of tests that are conducted by healthcare professionals–diagnostic tests and antibody tests. The diagnostic test, as the name implies, helps diagnose an active coronavirus infection in a patient. The ideal diagnostic test and the “gold standard” according to the United States Center for Disease Control (CDC) is the Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction, or simply, RT-PCR. RT-PCR is a molecular test not only capable of diagnosing an active coronavirus infection, but it can also indicate whether the patient has ever had COVID-19 or were infected with the coronavirus in the past. However, the time required to conduct the test limits its effectiveness when mass deployed.

A much faster but less reliable diagnostic test alternative to RT-PCR is an antigen test. Much like the gold standard, the antigen test is capable of detecting an active coronavirus infection in a much shorter timeframe. Although antigen tests produce rapid results, usually in about an hour, the results are deemed highly unreliable, especially with patients who were tested negative according to the US FDA.

In contrast, the antibody test is designed to search for antibodies produced by the immune system of a patient in response to the virus and is limited by its ability to only detect past infections, which is less than ideal to prevent an ongoing pandemic.

THE PROBLEM

To combat the rapid expansion of an airborne virus such as COVID-19, or future variations of a similar virus, rapid and reliable solutions must be developed that aim at improving the limitations of current methods. Although highly accurate, methods such as RT-PCR do not meet the speed requirements needed for testing on a large scale. Depending on the location, diagnosis of an active coronavirus infection with RT-PCR may take anywhere between several hours and up to a week. When the number of daily human-to-human interactions are considered, the lack of speed in diagnosing an active coronavirus patient could be the difference between a pandemic or an isolated local event.

As an alternative to molecular tests, Computed Tomography (CT) scans of a patient’s chest have shown promising results in detecting an infection. However, in addition to not being recommended by the CDC to diagnose COVID-19 patients, there are many unwanted consequences with the use of CT scans. With CT scans used to diagnose multiple illnesses, some of which relate to serious emergencies such as brain hemorrhaging, they cannot be used as the primary tool for diagnosing COVID-19. This is especially true in rural areas where the healthcare infrastructure is underfunded. Mainly due to the required deep cleaning of the machine and room after each patient, which usually requires 60 to 120 minutes, many institutions are unable to provide CT scans as a viable primary diagnostic tool. Ultimately, given the need for CT scanners for several other health complications combined with limited patient capacity at each hospital, alternative methods must be developed to diagnose an active coronavirus patient.

THE SOLUTION

Recently Point-of-Care (POC) devices have started to be adopted by many healthcare professionals due to its reliability and portability. An emerging popular technique, which adopts improvements made in mobile ultrasound technology, allows for healthcare professionals to conduct rapid screenings on a large scale.

Working since mid-March, when early cases of physicians adopting mobile ultrasound technology emerged, the research team at The Ohio State University, Dr. Alper Yilmaz and PhD student Shehan Perera, started developing a solution that can automate an already well-established process. Dr. Yilmaz is the director of the Photogrammetric Computer Vision lab at Ohio State. Dr. Yilmaz’s expertise in machine learning, artificial intelligence, and computer vision combined with the research experience of Shehan Perera laid a strong foundation to tackle the problem at hand. As it stands, the screening of a new patient, with the use of a mobile ultrasound device takes about 13 minutes, with the caveat that it requires a highly trained professional to interpret the results generated by the device. With the combination of deep learning and computer vision, the research team was able to use data generated from the ultrasound device to accurately identify COVID-19 cases. The current network architecture, which is the product of many iterations, is capable of detecting the presence of the virus in a patient with a high level of accuracy.

Many fields have been revolutionized with modern deep learning and computer vision technologies. With the methods developed by the research team, this technology can now allow any untrained worker to use a handheld ultrasound device, and still be able to provide a service that rivals that of a highly trained doctor. In addition to being extremely accurate, the automated detection and diagnosis process takes less than 10 minutes, which includes scanning time, and sanitation is as simple as removing a plastic seal that covers the device. The benefits of this technology can not only be useful for countries such as the United States, with a well-established healthcare system, but, more importantly, can significantly help countries and areas where medical expertise is rare.

CONCLUSION

The United States healthcare system is among the best in the world, yet we are failing to provide the necessary treatment patients clearly need. The developments made in artificial intelligence, deep learning, and computer vision offer proven benefits, which can not only be leveraged to improve the current state of the global pandemic but can lay the foundation to prevent the next. Alternative testing methods such as mobile ultrasound devices combined with novel artificial intelligence algorithms that allow for mass production, distribution, and testing could be the innovation that could help decelerate the spread of the virus, reducing the strain on the global healthcare infrastructure.

Feel Free to Reach the Authors at:

Photogrammetric Computer Vision Lab – https://pcvlab.engineering.osu.edu/
Dr. Alper Yilmaz, PhD
Email: Yilmaz.15@osu.du
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alper-yilmaz

Shehan Perera
Email: Perera.27@osu.edu
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shehanp/

References

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/coronavirus-testing-basics

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/depth-look-COVID-19s-early-effects-consumer-spending-gdp/#:~:text=BEA%20estimates%20that%20real%20GDP,first%20decline%20in%20six%20years.&text=This%20drop%20in%20GDP%20serves,in%20response%20to%20COVID%2D19.

Interested in learning more about COVID-19 or AI? Check out the following posts from the Scan:

Pioneering Ultrasound Units

Posted on October 8, 2019 by aium1952

If you think your ultrasound machine is out-dated, imagine if you still had to use these from as long ago as the 1940s.

1940s

Ultrasonic Locator
Dr G. D. Ludwig, a pioneer in medical ultrasound, concentrated on the use of ultrasound to detect gallstones and other foreign bodies embedded in tissues. During his service at the Naval Medical Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, Dr Ludwig developed this approach that is similar to the detection of flaws in metal. This is A-mode in its operation and was Dr Ludwig’s first ultrasonic scanning equipment.

Locator

1950s

Ultrasonic Cardioscope
Designed and built by the University of Colorado Experimental Unit, the Cardioscope was intended for cardiac work.

Ultrasonic Cardioscope

1960s

Sperry Reflectoscope Pulser / Receive Unit 10N
This is an example of the first instrument to use an electronic interval counter to make axial length measurements of the eye. Individual gates for the anterior segment, lens, and vitreous compartment provided accurate measurement at 10 and 15 MHz of the axial length of the eye. This concept was the forerunner of all optical axis measurements of the eye, which are required for calculation of the appropriate intraocular lens implant power after cataract extraction. This instrument, which includes A-mode and M-mode, was developed by Dr D. Jackson Coleman and Dr Benson Carlin at the Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center.

Sperry Reflectoscope Pulser

Sonoray Model No. 12 Ultrasonic Animal Tester (Branson Instruments, Inc.)
This is an intensity-modulated B-mode unit designed exclusively for animal evaluations. The instrument is housed in a rugged aluminum case with a detachable cover that contains the cables and transducer during transportation. The movable transducer holder on a fixed-curve guide was a forerunner of mechanical B-scan ultrasonic equipment.

Sonoray Animal Tester

Smith-Kline Fetal Doptone
In 1966, pharmaceutical manufacturer Smith Kline and French Laboratories of Philadelphia built and marketed a Doppler instrument called the Doptone, which was used to detect and monitor fetal blood flow and the heart rate. This instrument used the continuous wave Doppler prototype that was developed at the University of Washington.

Smith Kline Fetal Doptone

Smith-Kline Ekoline 20
Working in collaboration with Branson Instruments of Stamford, Connecticut, Smith-Kline introduced the Ekoline 20, an A-mode and B-mode instrument for echoencephalography, in 1963. When B-mode was converted to M-mode in 1965, the Ekoline 20 became the dominant instrument for echocardiography as well as was the first instrument available for many start-up clinical diagnostic ultrasound laboratories. The A-mode was used in ophthalmology and neurology to determine brain midlines.

Ekoline 20

University of Colorado Experimental System
Developed by Douglas Howry and his team at the University of Colorado Medical Center, this compound immersion scanner included a large water-filled tank. The transducer moved back and forth along a 4-inch path while the carriage on which the transducer was mounted moved in a circle around the tank, producing secondary motion necessary for compound scanning.

1970s

Cromemco Z-2 Computer System (Bioengineering at the University of Washington)
This color-Doppler prototype, introduced in 1977, was the computer used for early color Doppler experiments. Z2 “microcomputers” were used for a variety of data acquisition and analysis applications, including planning combat missions for the United States Air Force and modeling braking profiles for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system during actual operation.

Cromemco Z-2 Computer System

ADR-Model 2130
ADR of Tempe, Arizona, began delivering ultrasound components to major equipment manufacturers in 1973. Linear array real-time scanners, which began to be manufactured in the mid-1970s, provided greater resolution and more applications. Grayscale, with at least 10 shades of gray, allowed closely related soft tissues to be better differentiated. This 2-dimensional (2D) imaging machine was widely used in obstetrics and other internal medicine applications. It was marketed as an electronic linear array, which was faster and more repeatable without the need for a water bath as the transducer was placed right on the skin.

ADR Model 2130

Sonometrics Systems Inc, NY BR-400V
The first commercially available ophthalmic B-scanner, this system provided both linear and sector B-scans of the eye. The patient was examined in a water bath created around the eye by use of a sterile plastic ophthalmic drape with a central opening. Both A-scan and B-scan evaluations were possible with manual alignment of the transducer in the water bath. The instrument was developed at the Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center by Dr D. Jackson Coleman, working with Frederic L. Lizzi and Louis Katz at the Riverside Research Institute.

Sonometrics Systems Inc, NY BR-400V

Unirad GZD Model 849
Unirad’s static B-scanner, allowing black-and-white anatomic imaging, was used with a scan arm and had similar controls as those used today, including processing, attenuation compensation, and gain.

1980s

American Flight Echocardiograph
This American Flight Echocardiograph (AFE) is a 43-pound off-the-shelf version of an ATL 400 medical ultrasonic imaging system, which was then modified for space shuttle compatibility by engineers at the Johnson Space Center to study the adaptations of the cardiovascular system in weightlessness. Its first journey to space was on the space shuttle Discovery in 1985 and its last on the Endeavour in 1992. The AFE generated a 2D cross-sectional image of the heart and other soft tissues and displayed it in video format at 30 frames per second. Below, Dr Fred Kremkau explains more about it.

To check out even more old ultrasound machines, visit the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine’s (AIUM’s) An Exhibit of Historical Ultrasound Equipment.

How old is the ultrasound machine you use now? What older ultrasound equipment have you used? Did it spark your desire to work with ultrasound? Comment below, or, AIUM members, continue the conversation on Connect, the AIUM’s online community.

Connect_digital_graphics_E-NEWSLETTER

The AIUM is a multi-disciplinary network of nearly 10,000 professionals who are committed to advancing the safe and effective use of ultrasound in medicine.

Physics of Ultrasound

Posted on April 9, 2019 by aium1952

Snell’s Law [in-class demonstration]

The concept that sound reflects and propagates in varied angles is an abstract concept that many students struggle to understand. I review this concept by providing an in-class demonstration that makes this less abstract and something that can be seen with glasses of liquids.

Evans_Fig 1

If speed 1 < speed 2, then the incident angle < transmitted angle.

The difference in the stiffness and resulting propagation speeds helps to explain why the straw appears to be “broken” when you look through the side of the glass of water. The angle of transmission is measured against the vertical black line drawn on the glass of water. This helps to illustrate the 30-degree oblique incidence vs. the increased angle of transmission. A real-world example would be the change in imaging of a needle in a fluid-filled structure.

Example:

The propagation speed of sound through air is 900 m/sec while the propagation speed of sound through water is 1200 m/sec. To figure out the change in the angle of transmission, we form a ratio that will allow us to arrive at a percentage of change. So, 900/1200 = .75 and, therefore, that ratio of change from air to water in the glass is 100 – 75 = 25%. To figure out the angle, take 30 times .25 = 7.5 degrees. Therefore, 30 + 7.5 = 37.5 degree angle of transmission.

Now, consider a different glass of liquid as part of this demonstration by viewing a glass of Karo syrup.

Evans_Fig 2

This time, the glass is filled with Karo syrup, which is stiffer and denser than the water, and the transmitted angle is greater due to the increased ability to travel quickly in the second media.

If speed 1 < speed 2, then the incident angle < transmitted angle.

Example:

The propagation speed of sound through air is 900 m/sec while the propagation speed of sound through Karo is 1500 m/sec. To figure out the change in the angle of transmission, we form a ratio that will allow us to arrive at a percentage of change. So, 900/1500 = .60 and, therefore, the ratio of change from air to Karo syrup in the glass is 100 – 60 = 40% gain. To figure out the angle, take 30 times .4 = 12 degrees. 30 + 12 = 42 degree angle of transmission. The real world example for this is noting a speed propagation artifact.

A final demonstration can be a glass that has 1/3 air, 1/3 vinegar, and 1/3 cooking oil. Do not forget to add a straw so that several bends in the straw are noted by viewing through the side of the glass.

Kevin D. Evans, PhD, RT (R) (M) (BD), RDMS, RVS, FSDMS, FAIUM, is Chair and Professor of Radiologic Sciences and Respiratory Therapy at The Ohio State University in Columbus, OH.

Can Ultrasound be Used to Improve Prosthetic Device Function?

Posted on September 11, 2018 by aium1952

Ultrasound technology has continued to be miniaturized at a rapid pace for the past several decades. Recently, handheld smartphone-sized ultrasound systems have emerged and are enabling point-of-care imaging in austere environments and resource-poor settings. With further miniaturization, one can imagine that wearable smartwatch-sized imaging systems may soon be possible. What new opportunities can you imagine with wearable imaging? My research group has been pondering this question for a while, and we have been working on an unexpected application: using ultrasound imaging to sense muscle activity and volitionally control robotic devices. Bebionic

Since antiquity, humans have been working on developing articulated prosthetic devices to replace limbs lost to injury. One of the earliest designs of an articulated mechanical prosthetic hand dates from the Second Punic War (218–201 BC). However, robust and intuitive volitional control of prosthetic hands has been a long-standing challenge that has yet to be adequately solved. Even though significant research investments have led to the development of sophisticated mechatronic hands with multiple degrees of freedom, a large proportion of amputees eventually abandon these devices, often citing limited functionality as a major factor.

A major barrier to improving functionality has been the challenge of inferring the intent of the amputee user and to derive appropriate control signals. Inferring the user’s intent has primarily been limited to noninvasively sensing electrical activity of muscles in the residual limbs or more invasive sensing of electrical activity in the brain. Commercial myoelectric prosthetic hands utilize 2 skin-surface electrodes to record electrical activity from the flexor and extensor muscles of the residual stump. To select between multiple grips with just these 2 degrees of freedom, users often have to perform a sequence of non-intuitive maneuvers to select among pre-programmed grips from a menu. This rather unnatural control mechanism significantly limits the potential functionality of these devices for activities of daily living.

Recently, systems with multiple electrodes that utilize pattern recognition algorithms to classify the intended grasp end-state from recorded signals have shown promise. However, the ability of amputees to translate end-state classification to intuitive real-time control with multiple degrees of freedom continues to be limited.

To address these limitations, invasive strategies, such as implanted myoelectric sensors are being pursued. Another approach, known as targeted muscle reinnervation, involves surgically transferring the residual peripheral nerves from the amputated limb to different intact muscle targets that can function as a biological amplifier of the motor nerve signal. While these invasive strategies have exciting promise, there continues to be a need for better noninvasive sensing.

Recently, our research group has demonstrated that ultrasound imaging can be used to resolve the activity of the various muscle compartments in the residual forearm. When amputees imagine volitionally controlling their phantom limb, the innervated residual muscles in the stump contract and this mechanical contraction can be visualized clearly on ultrasound. Indeed, one of the major strengths of ultrasound is the exquisite ability to quantify even minute tissue motion. Contractions of both superficial and deep-seated functional muscle compartments can be spatially resolved enabling high specificity in differentiating between different intended movements.

Our research has shown that sonomyography can exceed the grasp classification accuracy of state-of-the-art pattern recognition, and crucially enables intuitive proportional position control by utilizing mechanical deformation of muscles as the control signal. In studies with transradial amputees, we have demonstrated the ability to generate robust control signals and intuitive position-based proportional control across multiple degrees of freedom with very little training, typically just a few minutes.

We are now working on miniaturizing this technology to a low-power wearable system with compact electronics that can be incorporated into a prosthetic socket and developing prototype systems that can be tested in clinical trials. The feedback we have received so far from our amputee subjects and clinicians indicates that this ultrasound technology can overcome many of the current challenges in the field, and potentially improve functionality and quality of life of amputee users.

Now, if only noninvasive ultrasound neuromodulation can be used to provide haptic and sensory feedback to amputee users in a closed loop ultrasound-based sensing and stimulation system, we will be a step closer to restoring sensorimotor functionality to amputee users, and a grand challenge in the field of neuroprosthetics may be within reach. That will, of course, require some more research.

I was attracted to ultrasound research as a graduate student because of the nearly limitless possibilities of ultrasound technology beyond traditional imaging applications. As wearable sensors revolutionize healthcare, perhaps wearable ultrasound may have a role to play. One can only imagine what other novel applications may be enabled as the technology continues to be miniaturized. I think it is an exciting time to be an ultrasound researcher.

What new opportunities can you imagine with wearable imaging? Are you working on something using miniaturized ultrasound? Comment below or let us know on Twitter: @AIUM_Ultrasound.

Siddhartha Sikdar, PhD, is a Professor in the Bioengineering Department in the Volgenau School of Engineering at George Mason University.

How to Commercialize Ultrasound Technology

Posted on April 24, 2018 by aium1952

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to commercialize an ultrasound technology. Reflecting upon this process, I am very grateful that there were so many team members and things (including those beyond our control) that contributed to the success of the project. By sharing our journey from the research bench to public use, I hope that people will get an idea of what is involved in a commercialization process and appreciate the importance of team work. Chen_Shigao_2016

It started with our research team who sketched out an idea of using multiple push beams spaced out like a comb to generate multiple shear waves at the same time. It could be used to improve both signal-to-noise ratio and the frame rate for ultrasound elastography. Fortunately our lab had a research scanner that came with a programmable platform. This idea was prototyped and tested on the same day and it worked! Were it not for the research scanner, it would have taken months to get this done. The alternative process involves contacting an ultrasound company (if we ever find one), gaining their support (a research agreement could take months to reach), and testing on a commercial prototype scanner (which is much harder compared to using a research scanner).

It was soon discovered afterwards that the interference of shear waves from the comb push beams make it very hard to calculate the wave speed for elasticity imaging accurately. A mathematician in our team offered to apply a signal processing algorithm that detangles the complicated shear waves into simpler component waves. It solved our problem and helped the idea pass the initial functionality test. The next step was to show the industry the translational potential of this technology and out-license it to them for further development and testing.

Back then, the clinical ultrasound division at our institution was developing a strategic partnership with a leading ultrasound company, which was looking for a shear wave elastography solution for their products. The company soon decided to license our technology. To speed up the progress, our intellectual property (IP) office negotiated the licensing agreement with the company, while we worked with the company engineers on the technology in parallel. Both parties shared a common culture of openness, which allowed us to exchange codes with each other. This trusting relationship was found to be very beneficial by both sides as we shared the dedication to achieve common goals quickly.

To ensure the successful implementation of the prototype, the collaboration continues in the form of site visits and numerous teleconferences between the sites until satisfied phantom and in vivo results were yielded. When the near-end prototype was available, an independent clinical study was performed at our institution to verify the performance and establish cut points for liver fibrosis staging. It greatly exemplified the benefit of affiliating with a large medical center. The extensive interdisciplinary research and medical environment at our institution has provided a unifying framework that bridges the gap of technical creation and clinical deployment. Upon positive results from clinical trials, the company was able to launch the product in 2014. The technique was FDA-approved and released at RSNA. We are very pleased to see the research outcome has been taken from the bench to the bedside and is improving the effectiveness of patient care worldwide.

It truly takes a village to make this happen. The success came with the supports of a huge team of ultrasound physicist, PhD student, mathematician, study coordinator, sonographer, radiologist, IP staff, and licensing manager. It calls for an industrial partner that has shared appreciation of value and common core objectives. Looking back at our journey, it is without question that every step presents its own challenge. By sharing our experiences, we hope to contribute to your future successful technology commercialization.

Have you tried to commercialize an ultrasound technology? Have you had a different experience commercializing ultrasound technology? Comment below or let us know on Twitter: @AIUM_Ultrasound.

Shiago Chen, PhD, is a Professor at the Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine.

Portable Ultrasound for the Win

Posted on August 1, 2017 by aium1952

todiian_pic

Tommaso Di Ianni, MSc
2017 New Investigator Award winner for Basic Science

What does being named the New Investigator Award winner mean to you?

It was an honor being appointed the New Investigator Award for the Basic Science category for “In Vivo Vector Flow Imaging for a Portable Ultrasound Scanner.” It means a lot to me to see my scientific contributions being recognized by some of the leading experts in the field. It provides a great stimulus to continue to focus on researching imaging solutions that will hopefully improve the clinical practice.

How did you get into working with ultrasound?

After the masters, I was looking for open PhD positions, and I found an opening about portable ultrasound imaging at Professor Jørgen A. Jensen’s Center for Fast Ultrasound Imaging at the Technical University of Denmark. I didn’t know much about ultrasound at the time, but I was fascinated about its great capabilities as a risk-free imaging modality. Even more, I was attracted by the fact that ultrasound scanners can be scaled like any other electronic device and can become so small it can fit in a lab coat pocket. Currently, this does not apply to other imaging technologies, and I believe that ultrasound has a lot of potential to make a difference at the point of care.

What do you like the most about working with ultrasound?

I am overwhelmed about the patterns that the blood can depict when flowing into the vessels. With ultrasound, we can obtain a very high temporal resolution and we can visualize dynamic details on a millisecond scale. Sometimes, we can see vortices forming when the valves in the jugular vein close, or the helical flow in the ascending aorta. Also, the vortices forming in the heart are absolutely impressive to look at. I believe there’s a lot of diagnostic potential in that wealth of information.

What are your future research plans?

Currently, I’m completing my PhD and I will continue my research as a postdoc for some more months. In the future, I plan to continue to do research in the biomedical engineering field. I’m very interested in imaging the microvasculature in cancer to improve the characterization of the tumor’s functional activity and to track the response to the therapy.

Why did you become interested in ultrasound? Where did you learn your ultrasound skills? Comment below or let us know on Twitter: @AIUM_Ultrasound. Learn more about the AIUM Awards Program at www.aium.org/aboutUs/awards.aspx.

Tommaso Di Ianni, MSc, is a PhD student at Technical University of Denmark.

Puzzle Solver

Posted on December 6, 2016 by aium14750

During the 2016 AIUM Annual Convention, Michael Kolios, PhD, was awarded the Joseph H. Holmes Basic Science Pioneer Award. We asked him a few questions about the award, November 11, 2015 what interests him, and the future of medical ultrasound research. This is what he had to say.

What does being named the Joseph H. Holmes Basic Science Pioneer Award winner mean to you?
It means a lot to me to be recognized by my peers in this manner. It motivates me to work even harder to contribute more to the community. I have been associated with the AIUM for a long time and have thoroughly enjoyed interacting with all the members over the years. When I peruse the list of the previous Joseph H. Holmes Basic Science Pioneer Awardees and look at their accomplishments, I feel quite humbled by being the recipient of this award, and hope one day to match their contributions to the field.

What gets you excited the most when it comes to research?
I get excited when I generate/discuss new ideas, participate in the battle of new and old ideas, and the immensely complex detective work that is required to prove or disprove these new ideas. I thoroughly enjoy the interactions with all my colleagues and trainees that join me in this indefatigable and never-ending detective work, as solving one puzzle almost always creates many new ones. This is what I’ve encountered in the last 2 decades while probing basic questions on the propagation of ultrasound waves in tissue, and how different tissue structures scatter the sound. Finally, I get very excited when I try to think about how to use the basic science knowledge generated from this research to inform clinical practice, and envisioning the day this will potentially make a difference in the lives of people.

How can we encourage more ultrasound research?
We need to provide the resources to people in order to do the research in ultrasound. Most funding agencies are stretched to the limit and success rates are sometimes in the single digits. This makes it very challenging to do research in general, including ultrasound research. Therefore, pooling resources and providing environments where ultrasonic research can excel will partially help—creating/promoting/maintaining centers for ultrasound research. This can also be promoted through networking and professional societies, such as the AIUM.Another thing to do to encourage more ultrasound research is by demonstrating the clinical impact of ultrasound and how it could be used to save the lives of patients. Only through the close collaboration of basic scientists/engineers with clinicians/clinician-scientists/sonographers can this be achieved. Developments in therapeutic ultrasound for example are very exciting, and have recently attracted the attention of both public and private funding agencies with many success stories. Moreover, providing seed money through opportunities such as the ERR (Endowment for Education and Research) is a step in the right direction—to give people the opportunity to pursue their ideas in the field of ultrasound research.

What new or upcoming research has you most intrigued?
While I spent a lot of time trying to understand ultrasound scattering, and how changes in tissue morphology influence this scattering, I’m currently dedicating most of my time to the new field called photoacoustic imaging. It is known that conventional clinical ultrasound has relatively poor soft tissue contrast, but in photoacoustic imaging light is used to generate ultrasound. These ultrasound waves, created when light is absorbed by tissue, provides exciting results that allow not only probing tissue anatomy, but also function in ways that not many other modalities can. After the light is absorbed and the waves initiated, everything we know about ultrasound applies—and in fact we can use the same ultrasound instrumentation to create images. I expect this imaging modality to have clinical impact in the near future.

You are well accomplished within the medical ultrasound research community, but when you were young what did you want to be when you grew up?
When I was young I wanted to be firstly an astronaut, then a philosopher, pondering basic questions and fundamental problems in nature. I ended up studying physics and its applications in medicine. It has been a highly rewarding choice!

If you were presenting this award at the 2017 AIUM Annual Convention, who would you like to see receive it and why?
I’d like to see someone that has contributed to ultrasound, with work spanning from the basic science/engineering to clinical application! It would also be encouraging to see the next recipient being a woman or minority, reflecting the true diversity from which new ideas come, and representing a constituency for which society has relatively recently given the opportunity to contribute to science in a meaningful and sustained manner.

Who would you like to see win an AIUM award? What ideas do you have to increase the interest in and funding for research? Comment below or let us know on Twitter: @AIUM_Ultrasound.

Michael Kolios, PhD, is Professor in the Department of Physics, and Associate Dean of Science, Research and Graduate Studies at Ryerson University.

Research in Ultrasound: Why We Do It

Posted on October 25, 2016 by aium14750

“Medicine, the only profession that labors incessantly to destroy the reason for its existence.” –James Bryce

We all know the important medical discoveries clinical research has given us over time. stamatia-v-destounis-md-facr You could even make the case that the high standards of care we have today are built on centuries of research.

The world of medical ultrasound is no stranger to clinical research—dating back to the early work of transmission ultrasound of the brain. This work was especially important, as it was the first ultrasonic echo imaging of the human body.

Since then, research has brought about gray scale imaging, better transducer design, better understanding of beam characteristics, tissue harmonics and spatial compounding, and the development of Doppler. All of these research developments, as well as many others, were highly significant and have lead us to today’s high-quality handheld, real-time ultrasound imaging.

For me, the biggest and most important developments were and have been in breast ultrasound. In 1951, the research of Wild and Neal discovered and qualified the acoustic characteristics of benign and malignant breast tumors through use of an elementary high-frequency (15-MHz) system that produced an A-mode sonogram. These researchers published the results of additional ultrasound examinations in 21 breast tumors: 9 benign and 12 malignant, with two of the cases becoming the first 2-dimensional echograms (B-mode sonograms) of breast tissue ever published.

It is research that leads to landmark publications that change the way we practice. The ACRIN 6666 trial led by Dr Wendie Berg and her co-authors evaluated women at elevated risk of breast cancer with screening mammography compared with combined screening mammography and ultrasound. This pivotal study demonstrated that adding a single screening ultrasound to mammography can increase cancer detection in high-risk women. In our current environment this is even more relevant, as breast density notification legislation is being adopted in states across the country. With the legislation, patients with dense breast tissue are often being referred for additional screening services, with ultrasound most often being the screening modality of choice.

Screening ultrasound is an area on which I have focused much of my own research. I practice in New York State, where our breast density notification legislation became effective in January 2013. I have been interested in reviewing my practice’s experience with screening ultrasound in these patients to evaluate cancer detection and biopsy rates. My initial experience was published in the Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine in 2015, and supported what other breast screening ultrasound studies have found, an additional cancer detection rate of around 2 per 1000. Through my continued evaluation of our screening breast ultrasound program, I have found a persistently higher cancer detection rate by adding breast ultrasound to the screening mammogram–which is of great importance to all breast imagers, as we are finding cancers that were occult on mammography.

Participating in valuable research is important to me and my colleagues because part of our breast center’s mission is to investigate new technologies and stay on the cutting-edge by offering the latest and greatest to our patients. Participating in clinical research provides us important experience with new technology, and an opportunity to evaluate firsthand new techniques, new equipment, and new ideas and determine what will most benefit our patients. This is what I find the most important aspect of research, and why I do it; to be able to find new technologies that improve upon the old, to continue to find breast cancers as early as possible, and to improve patient outcomes.

Why is medical research/ultrasound research so important to you? What research questions would you like to see answered? Share your thoughts and ideas here and on Twitter: @AIUM_Ultrasound.

Stamatia Destounis, MD, FACR, is an attending radiologist and managing partner at Elizabeth Wende Breast Clinic. She is also Clinical Professor of Imaging Sciences at the University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry.

The Scan

The official blog of the AIUM

Category Archives: Basic Science and Instrumentation