Imaging based diagnosis could read presence or absence of particular gene mutations from the images so that the genes can be silenced by the drugs.
Imaging based diagnosis could also figure out whether a particular cancer precursor is going to develop into invasive cancer and do it better than the experts we have now (otherwise we wouldn't use the AI).
This can also be done cheaper than paying consultants to figure it out and it can be done in locations where they don't have the specialists.
Some companies working in the field (some already have tools approved for use on patients):
https://analogintelligence.com/artificial-intelligence-ai-st...
>Imaging based diagnosis could also figure out whether a particular cancer precursor is going to develop into invasive cancer and do it better than the experts we have now (otherwise we wouldn't use the AI).
Where is the evidence for these claims, other than a VC hype sheet? Like real clinical trials. These claims also show a fundamental misunderstanding of what this data can tell us. Imaging data doesn't give you tumor genetic profiles. It can give you tumor phenotype, which is associated with specific mutations. To get the true genetic profile you need to do deep sequencing at tens of thousands of dollars per tumor, and even then you have the problem of tumor heterogeneity, which lets the cancer evade the treatment.
A major concern I have working in this space is that we're selling people on grand promises of far off possibilities rather than what we can actually deliver right now.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-019-0462-y
Of course changes in the genotype that impact the phenotype enough to influence the disease also influence the morphology of the cells.
But this is area of active research so you can't expect phase 3 clinical trials. Yet.
EDIT: here is another more "perspective" paper how such tools could be used and integrated in current processes, from the same authors