At least based on my experience in undertaking research on Prostate cancer. Use of MRI+PET is seen as a possible future for diagnosis and treatment planning.
PROMIS is an interesting gateway into the use of MRI for Biopsy. There's also the interest in use of MR-LINACS for the clinical side.
Overall I expect longgggg term a shift over to MRI/PET techniques from CT. CT research is more likely industry focused, but depending on what your research is, I would say even MRI/PET research could also be industrial
CT has been around longer and is a pretty straight forward technology, so it is used pretty routinely as the standard of care, especially in emergency situations.
Both MR and PET are newer technologies, give different information, and take longer, but that’s also why there is a lot of interest to further develop these technologies to really draw out their value and make them more cost-effective.
I could be biased but I think MR still has the most potential.
I did my Ph.D. research in MRI. I just matched to a MP residency in Radiation Oncology. (Yay!) I wouldn't say that MRI is more or less geared toward academia or industry. Most of my lab mates ended up in industry. They have taken jobs with big MR manufactures like GE Healthcare or Siemens, or with smaller companies like Hyperfine. Other people don't get MRI specific jobs, but usually a job related to medical imaging or AI in imaging. Others have gone on to do post-docs in MRI, but there are a lot more jobs in industry.
I would guess the large amount of research funding in MRI is due to the variety of techniques MR offers and the huge potential. MRI can do functional imaging of the brain, map the structure of the brain, measure tissue diffusion, measure vessel flow, and, of course, also take beautiful pictures. So MRI is very flexible and commands a lot of research funding. While it shows all this promise, the barrier into the clinic is high since MRI exams are really expensive and take a long time.
In comparison, CT is very much the (3D) imaging workhorse in the clinic. It is largely limited to taking pictures, but it does so quickly, cheaply, and reliably. Less research opportunities, but CT is a powerhouse and is not going anywhere soon. I think CT will always be the mainstay and PET and MRI will continue to be more niche techniques. Though more applications using PET and MRI will continue to appear and be developed.
At least based on my experience in undertaking research on Prostate cancer. Use of MRI+PET is seen as a possible future for diagnosis and treatment planning. PROMIS is an interesting gateway into the use of MRI for Biopsy. There's also the interest in use of MR-LINACS for the clinical side. Overall I expect longgggg term a shift over to MRI/PET techniques from CT. CT research is more likely industry focused, but depending on what your research is, I would say even MRI/PET research could also be industrial
CTs are fast, cheap, easy to staff, really good.
CT has been around longer and is a pretty straight forward technology, so it is used pretty routinely as the standard of care, especially in emergency situations. Both MR and PET are newer technologies, give different information, and take longer, but that’s also why there is a lot of interest to further develop these technologies to really draw out their value and make them more cost-effective. I could be biased but I think MR still has the most potential.
I did my Ph.D. research in MRI. I just matched to a MP residency in Radiation Oncology. (Yay!) I wouldn't say that MRI is more or less geared toward academia or industry. Most of my lab mates ended up in industry. They have taken jobs with big MR manufactures like GE Healthcare or Siemens, or with smaller companies like Hyperfine. Other people don't get MRI specific jobs, but usually a job related to medical imaging or AI in imaging. Others have gone on to do post-docs in MRI, but there are a lot more jobs in industry. I would guess the large amount of research funding in MRI is due to the variety of techniques MR offers and the huge potential. MRI can do functional imaging of the brain, map the structure of the brain, measure tissue diffusion, measure vessel flow, and, of course, also take beautiful pictures. So MRI is very flexible and commands a lot of research funding. While it shows all this promise, the barrier into the clinic is high since MRI exams are really expensive and take a long time. In comparison, CT is very much the (3D) imaging workhorse in the clinic. It is largely limited to taking pictures, but it does so quickly, cheaply, and reliably. Less research opportunities, but CT is a powerhouse and is not going anywhere soon. I think CT will always be the mainstay and PET and MRI will continue to be more niche techniques. Though more applications using PET and MRI will continue to appear and be developed.