In a few years we are likely to see 3D images generated instantly, and with comparable resolution to today's 2D views. Inclusion of functional information, possibly at the molecular level, could also assist in clinical decision-making. Some specialist clinicians with intimate knowledge of their field of interest are likely to have a better understanding of the pathology and physiology of an organ system than a general radiologist. So given that the images will be presented in a more familiar format, why should clinicians and surgeons wait for a general radiologist to read them? If radiologists wish to retain their role as the experts in image interpretation, they will not only need a thorough understanding of imaging and radiological anatomy, but also a detailed understanding of pathology and physiology. It is clearly unrealistic to expect most people to gain that knowledge across a range of fields, hence the need for subspecialization. There are already commercial moves to harness the expertise of superspecialist radiologists, using teleradiology, to provide expert opinions in particularly difficult cases. This is just the beginning of a major shift in the pattern of practice in radiology. The radiology community cannot ignore impending technological developments. If radiologists take no interest in the emergence of highly detailed, user-friendly images, then the clinicians and surgeons will organise their own department-based image interpretation. However, radiologists are very good at adapting to technological change and are very likely to rise to these challenges. Far from having a sell-by date, radiology has a bright future.
Radiology ; standards ; trends ; Time Factors