GPUs Deliver Mammogram-like Breast Scans In 20 Minutes

Tom's Hardware ^ | May 29, 2008 | Theo Valich

[rmlew]

Santa Clara (CA) - Taking annual mammograms is generally recommended for women with an age of 35 years and above. But these radiology procedures are inconvenient and can actually be painful, since the breast needs to be squeezed between two metal plates. TechniScan has developed a new method to scan a breast - a method that is based on the processing capability of GPUs to deliver 3D images, which could replace traditional mammograms one day. It is a fascinating example how we can take advantage of the enormous progress in technology to save lives.

We don’t really have to go into the seriousness of mammograms and their necessity. Breast cancer incidence rates in the U.S. are actually among the highest in the world, affecting about 101 out of 100,000 women on average. According to current statistics, the breast cancer in 19 of these 1001 women is fatal. Improving methods to detect cancer early is always a good thing and we were actually fascinated by a new and so far little known development in this specific area.

TechniScan Medical Systems says it has developed GPU-assisted technology called UltraSoundCT, which uses ultrasound to scan a breast. For a patient, this approach is much more comfortable than a mammogram, since there is no ionization radiation and no need for the compression of a breast. On the technology side, UltraSoundCT produce two unique images of the breast; one based on the speed of sound and one based on the attenuation of sound.

The computer system uses four GeForce 8-series graphics cards to produce coronal image slices of the breast that will be exported in DICOM 3.0 format as well as full 3D views of a breast. TechniScan says that it takes just 20 minutes to render the images, compared to several hours that would be required on a CPU. According to the company, the ultrasound scan can prove be more effective in cases of dense breasts. Radiologists of a local Chicago hospital told TG Daily that they would also prefer to use this system over a mammogram if a patient has breast implants - which decrease the likelihood the lumps are detected.

TechniScan said that its UltraSoundCT images are "intended for use when post-mammographic evaluation is needed to resolve diagnostic ambiguity." At this time the system is not offered to replace mammograms, but rather as a tool for additional evaluation.

"Mammography continues to be the industry standard for general breast cancer screening. However, a number of studies, including one national multicenter study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and the Avon Foundation through the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN), are underway to study the role of ultrasound in screening for breast cancer. These studies are evaluating whether breast ultrasound is a comparable, and in some cases, a preferable breast screening modality for women with dense breasts and at high risk for breast cancer," TechniScan states on its website.

We usually write stories about performance of graphics cards, computers advancing communication, but anyone who knows someone who had to go through breast cancer, understand that this is technology is truly something special. Kudos to TechniScan for coming up with this technology that may be offering a safer and more comfortable way to scan one of most sensitive parts of the human body.

What a fascinating time we live in.

[rmlew]

Not to be an Nvidia fanboy, but damn.
Nvidia has taken its 128 Steam Processor Cards (8800GTX) and reworked them not only for professional workstations, but turned them into highly programmable, massively parallel systems.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla_computing_solutions.html

[miliantnutcase]

I’m an Nvidia fan boy! Can you say folding monster?

[pipecorp]

I used to have ati, now I’m running 8800 gt .... its nice!

[ThePythonicCow]

Breast cancer incidence rates in the U.S. are actually among the highest in the world, affecting about 101 out of 100,000 women on average. According to current statistics, the breast cancer in 19 of these 1001 women is fatal.

There was pretty obviously a typo somewhere in the above numbers; is it 101 or 1001 women out of 100,000?

A quick seach of breast cancer rates makes it clear that the "1001" was the error. It should have been "101". That is each year, one in a thousand women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and one in five thousand women will die of breast cancer.

[ThePythonicCow]

Just to put it context however, breast cancer is not the top cause of death in American women. From http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/:

---

Statistics

Aside from non-melanoma skin cancer, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in women. Breast cancer is the number one cause of cancer death in Hispanic women. It is the second most common cause of cancer death in white, black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native women.

In 2004 (the most recent year numbers are available),

• 186,772 women and 1,815 men were diagnosed with breast cancer*^†
• 40,954 women and 362 men died from breast cancer*^†

^†Source: U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 2004 Incidence and Mortality. Atlanta (GA): Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute; 2007.

*Note: Incidence counts cover approximately 98% of the U.S. population and death counts cover 100% of the U.S. population. Use caution in comparing incidence and death counts.

Top 10 Causes of Death for Women in the United States^‡

The graph below shows how breast cancer compares to other common causes of death in women of all ages.

---

[envisio]

>>>GPUs Deliver Mammogram-like Breast Scans In 20 Minutes<<<<

20 minutes is way to long....you don’t stare at it. It’s too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away.

[CarrotAndStick]

 

Current crop of graphics cards compared, ranked by price

 May 9th 2008 at 6:19AM

 

Although NVIDIA's pledged to simplify its lineup for consumers and ATI's been getting better, the current state of the graphics card market is still a pretty wild alphabet soup of model numbers and specs lists, so the crew over at The Tech Report decided to break things down using the only stat that matters: price. While the results aren't exactly shocking (surprise: more dollars equals more FPS), what's interesting is that multi-GPU rigs are really quite cost-effective, delivering performance on par with higher-end cards at significantly lower prices. For example, two Radeon HD 3850s run nearly as fast as a single Radeon HD 3870 X2, even though they cost a fair bit less, and two GeForce 9600 GTs can potentially outgun a GeForce 8800 Ultra. That's always been the promise of SLI and CrossFire, and it looks like it's paying off -- any system-builders out there care to share their experiences?

http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/09/current-crop-of-graphics-cards-compared-ranked-by-price/

 

[rmlew]

I really am not qualified to judge NVidia's higher end set ups. I don't game that much and I'm not going to spend $1200-2000 for Graphics cards alone for a 9800 set up. (I am getting a PS3).

Still from specs, I can tell you that I am shocked by Nvidia's decision to cripple its 9800GTX with only 512mb of DDR3 Ram when they had 768mb in the 8800GTX and 8800 Ultra. DX10 games running at 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 demand more memory.