See full document at: https://bit.ly/2X4XVuc.

Please read the report about the suffering and pain of the person dear to me (https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd; blog: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z) like millions of other people who suffer because they discovered tumors at stage 3 or 4.

We are not on this planet to show our power in suppressing others but to use logical reasoning to understand the laws of nature (science) for improving the quality of life to everyone and to use compassion to alleviate suffering.

I am asking the organizers of the 2021 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference for transparency and scientists to take responsibility for providing logical and scientific answers.

Today I asked the following question to the keynote speaker Prof. Iwao Kanno: “I read with attention and interest your abstract. I perfectly agree with all your statements summarized in “The essence of PET is quantitative measurement of in vivo biology” Could you please look at this document https://bit.ly/2X4XVuc and check if “accurately capture all possible valid signals from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured” is the answer to get what you want?”

The convener, Taiga Yamaya did not read my question he skipped mine and read the one after. However, in the chat window my question was labeled “This question was answered live”, but I never received an answer.

Please read withing your text my rebuttal in between ***>my text <***.

I have provided the logical, technical, scientific answers that resolve all remarks raise by you and your reviewer. Therefore there are no more logical, or scientific reason to reject my papers and I respectfully ask you to approve them organizing a presentation before the end of the Conference and I am also asking to respectfully include my articles in the Proceedings of the Conference.

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

Rebuttal to the rejection of my abstracts

—–Original Message—–
From: Taiga Yamaya <yamaya.taiga@qst.go.jp>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 7:37 PM
To: crosettodario@gmail.com
Cc: ‘Dario Crosetto’ <info@3d-computing.com>; jaes@snu.ac.kr; Engels, Ralf <r.engels@fz-juelich.de>; 神野郁夫 <kanno@nucleng.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: 2021 IEEE NSS MIC RTSD | Reject Notice for Abstract #1283

Dear Dario,

Again, we are sorry that your abstracts were not accepted for presentation at the IEEE MIC2021. Here is feedback from reviewers. We hope these comments can be your help for your future research ***>There are evidence instead from experimental results that the research that was approved by IEEE with the papers in the past 20 years did not provide a significant reduction in cancer deaths and costs, and the scientific community just learned that they should go back to the BGO crystals that they rejected in my papers for 20 years. As well as they have to go back to many other things they have rejected in my papers.  Therefore I hope that these results can be your help for your future evaluation of what works and what doesn’t work in reducing cancer deaths and costs<***..

Best regards,

Jae Sung and Taiga

1998. I remember your book entitled as “400+ sensitivity …”, which, probably in more than 15-20 years ago, my boss at that time bought for young researchers like me to study. It is sure that CBS was an innovative idea at that time, and no body would not deny your CBS is one of the origin of the stream of a concept of current tota-body PET ***>If it was a good idea as also many others concur, why the ISBN of my book and my papers were not cited by you and others? If you claim that now there is a better idea that can achieve a higher reduction in cancer deaths and costs, could you provide a reference to that idea and then we will first use the logic, the calculations and scientific evidence to determine which idea is superior and then build my 3D-CBS and the one you refer to and then test both on a sample population to verify their efficacy. My invention is technology-independent, it is a concept, an architecture, an optimize synergy between all components that can migrate to the most cost-effective technology at any time. So please tell your reviewers to study my design and stop rejecting my project saying that it is old. The wheel is older than my invention, but it is still used and it follows the evolution of new material. In 1998 my 3D-Flow circuit was ported to three different FPGAs: Altera, Xilinx and ORCA, Lucent Technology and Synopsys ported it to a 350 nm CMOS technology. In 2003 I implemented using the largest FPGA from Altera at that time. In 2015 was mapped to a 40 nm technology gaining ten times in speed, consuming 1/10 and costing 1/200 compared to the 350 nm technology of 1998. Now it will be even faster, consume less and cost less. Please provide the reference to a PET project with long FOV of 150 cm which cost less than $2 million in components and that can capture all possible photons from a 30 mm thick crystal with 7g/cm³ density and then we can compare the detail. If you will not be able to prove with calculations any other project having a higher efficiency and lower cost, please stop stating that my 3D-CBS project is old so you and your reviewers will reject it. <***. I am sorry to tell you that MIC cannot accept your entries for presentation because the reviewers could not find enough technological updates from conventional technologies including your original CBS concept and the reviewers felt that medical-economical topic is quit difficult to discuss in MIC ***>If you cannot find a concept that provides higher efficiency at a lower cost, why do you want to give taxpayers who pay the research ideas, concepts and products that are less efficient and cost more? <***..

Thank you.   Taiga

——-

#1271

Studies show cancer screening tests on the 3D-CBS technology can save over 100 million lives and over $27 trillion in the next 30 years

“Out of the scope of IEEE MIC, which is described in the web site as the latest physics, engineering, and mathematical aspects of medical imaging.” ***>Is the latest physics, engineering and mathematical aspects of medical imaging the WPET (https://bit.ly/3d3m73J) (Wearable Positron Emission Tomography) device? The WPET is stating in the abstract (http://bit.ly/2Mv27gN), the authors state: “In this project we’re proposing to use the latest developments in scintillators, in scintillators, photo-detectors, electronics, quantum detection methodologies, system miniaturisation and data handling, storage and transmission, … Movement detectors (accelerometers as well as gyros) could be integrated in the jacket…” The patient is required to wear this jacket weighing over 350 kg for screening cancer for 24 hours. (http://bit.ly/2EPRXks). This award winning proposal states: “The WPET will allow the use of a lower dose radioactive tracer, 24 hour scan, and thus make possible preventive screening” (slide: http://bit.ly/2JWsxG2).

”Calculations and scientific evidence of approaches and innovations in physics, engineering and medical imaging that show cost-effectiveness compared to alternative approaches in providing advancement in science and benefits to taxpayers and cancer patients in lives and money saved is the latest in physics, engineering and mathematical aspects of medical imaging and it remain the latest until another more advanced concept can prove higher efficiency at a lower cost. It is illogical to take the WPET or Axial PET project that cost more and are less efficient only because it came later and reviewers call those latest technology. ”<***.

“As an analysis of economic feasibility rather than a technical study, it seems that the study does not fit the purpose of this meeting.” ***>It is indeed a very technical study, providing electronic schematics, mechanical design, implementation, real-time photon detection software algorithms, specifying the cost of each component, and providing quotes from two to three different companies for each component that proves feasibility. <***..

“This is a deeply flawed paper***>Nothing has been prove flawed in the paper<***. The abstract is a description of an Excel table, and printout of the completed table ***>I provided the link to the source file of the table with the access to each formula in each cell. You and your reviewers did not point out any flaws in my formula that would invalidate my claims <***., that calculates cost saving through implementing aggressive screening of the general population. While it is never actually stated in the abstract ***>This is not true, it is stated in line 7 of the abstract and in several places in the references <***.., the ‘3D-CBS’ system and use is assumed to be in practice a total body PET system performing FDG imaging. It is not possible within this limited space to detail my concerns with this abstract, so I will simply give some of the larger ones: It is assumed that each 3D-CBS system will screen 90,000 patients per year in 250 imaging days. This assumes 22.5 patients per hour, or 2.67 minutes per patient. ..,  While the total body imaging may be feasible in 2 minutes, it is not feasible in clinical practice to turn over the system in 0.67 minutes for the next patient. ***>My abstract states “360 x 2-minute test”.  This is based on a 1-minute screening test + 1-minute in-out the bed for a throughput of 2-minute total, as performed daily in Shanghai, China. Your calculation of 0.67 minutes is arbitrary and cannot find relation in my text. Therefore, nothing has been proven flawed here <***.

The assumed cost of $200 per scan is not justified with a detailed breakdown of costs. The consumables alone for an FDG injection of a patient are tens of dollars (e.g. saline, catheter set, syringe, FDG, laundry, etc.), ***>The cost of the consumables, salaries, etc. has been discussed with several experts in the field, a salary of $400,000 per year for each of the 20 doctors has been found reasonable. You have not provided remarks to invalidate the cost, the laundry, syringe, etc. can fit in the buffer of $23,120 per day which is the difference between the income of $81,60/day, minus expenses $58,480/ day <***..,  so I am not convinced at the costing . ***>The words “I am not convinced or it is not credible” should never be used by a scientist or reviewer, who should rather provide his calculation showing something significantly wrong or should let someone else review the paper stating not being competent in the field <*** In year 30 it is assumed that there will be 57,409 scanners each imaging 90,000 patients per year. This is 5.167 Billion scans per year, or roughly 50% of the world’s population images each year. This number does not seem credible. ***>How many people have been punched with a syringe in the arm for the Covid-19 vaccine during the past year? The words “I am not convinced or it is not credible” should never be used by a scientist or reviewer, who should rather provide his calculation showing something significantly wrong or should let someone else review the paper stating not being competent in the field <***

There is no mention or costing of the impact of interventions caused by false positive results.” ***>My additional invention TB-CAD, (Total Body Computer-Aided Diagnosis) basing the diagnosis on analyzing the trend of data from several screening tests at short distance will reduce considerably the number of false positives. Again, the buffer of $23,120/day margin between income-expenses per day can cover these expenses. If not sufficient the screening test can be increased to $250/test but still this does not invalidate my claims and you did not prove being flawed <***

——-

#1279

Studies show cancer screening tests on the 3D-CBS technology at $200/test and very low radiation can save over 260 lives per year per device at less than $140,000 per life saved, compared to the current $10 million per life saved

“This is not a technical study, and most of the content is based on speculation.” ***>This is what is eliminating speculation. Speculation is the cost of cancer in the world of over $1.5 trillion per year and seeing the mortality reaching 10 million cancer deaths per year and increasing every year because no one is making this technical study. For example, Italy is spending €20 billion per year on cancer with a constant population and a slight increase in cancer mortality. It is when data show no difference in mortality rate between countries that spend huge money for cancer and those that do not spend money.

<***

“This paper proposes that using the author’s total body PET/CT, called the 3D-CBS, to screen 90,000 patients per year will save 260 lives per year and be profit generating for the clinical site. The economics of running a large scale screening center can be debated. ***>This is a good reason to approve this paper to start a debate <*** In my opinion ***>The words “in my opinion” should not be used by a scientist or reviewer, who should rather provide his calculation showing something significantly wrong or should let someone else review the paper stating not being competent in the field <*** the author underestimates the costs per scan and throughput that can be reliably achieved in a clinical setting, both of which will impact the economic feasibility. ***>Please provide your knowledgeable information and we can cross-check your data <***  The core issue that I see with this paper is that the underlying hypothesis is that it is possible to reliably detect most tumours when they consist of only a few hundred cells. If this is truly consistently possible, then there may be merit to the mass screening program proposed. ***>This is possible, it has been measured experimentally on the EXPLORER that can detect clusters emitting only 10 signals per second (Bq) in the air, which is reasonable to expect to detect 100 cells in a water phantom or human body <***   If it is not possible, then none of the subsequent assumptions about lives saved and cost for life saved are valid. While it is never stated, the assumption is that the tracer is FDG. This is a non-specific tracer that makes identifying small lesions in a patient very difficult in the presence of the background of physiological variability. ***>To overcome this problem, I made an additional invention TB-CAD, (Total Body Computer-Aided Diagnosis) basing the diagnosis on analyzing the trend of data from several screening tests at short distance in time (months) <***   This paper presented no data to support the hypothesis that these very small tumours can be reliable identified in vivo.” ***>Two data support this hypothesis: the capability to detect clusters emitting fewer than 100 signals from the tumor markers (which has been verified) and my additional invention TB-CAD, (Total Body Computer-Aided Diagnosis) basing the diagnosis on analyzing the trend of data from several screening tests at short distance in time (months) <***

——-

#1283

3D-CBS: The first true paradigm change in biomedical imaging invented 20 years ago, confirmed by measured results to enable a safe, very early lifesaving cancer detection. Why hasn’t it been funded? Who is responsible for millions of needless deaths?

“The authors claim may not be wrong, but scientific data to back it up has not been presented.” ***>Scientific data are presented: the concept of the innovative part tested in hardware, the simulation, the mechanical design of the real-system, the electronic schematics, the real-time photon detection algorithm. 59 quotes from 21 industries with good reputation showing feasibility to build all components <***

“This paper gives high level details on the author’s proposed 3D-CBS PET system design, describing the power consumption and data throughput, then describes how his design has not gotten a fair review and been overlooked for 20 years. As a technical paper it lacks sufficient detail to evaluate the claims. ***>Technical details are summarized in one figure showing all component in scale and links are provided to the details of each component. Please provide the reference to another abstract and summary describing the entire project and the details of each component as this abstract-summary provides <*** While the electronics are somewhat described, there is no detail provided about the detector itself other than the fact it is 30mm thick BGO with 1.5 m axial FOV. ***>There is the list of 17 bullet points in my summary answering all these question with references to document providing the details: e.g. the detector is described on page 178 and 183 of the reference 2 goo.gl/ggGGwF <***  Is there a prototype or simulation data that can support the claims of reliably detecting tumours in vivo containing only 150 Bq? ***>The 150 Bq is supported by measurements made on the EXPLORER with 18.1 mm thick LYSO crystal with the same density as the BGO crystal, therefore a 30 mm BGO crystal can detect clusters with even fewer than 150 Bq. <***   The author bases the assumption about performance from extrapolations to their system design from data acquired with the 2m long EXPLORER system. This can be valid if supporting data are provided to demonstrate the relative performance of the EXPLORER detectors and the proposed 3D-CBS detectors. However, these data are not provided. Rather, the claims are made without any supporting evidence. ***>My assumption is valid because the measurements on the EXPLORER are public and I provided those in reference 6 of my summary. The supporting evidence are the EXPLORER with 18.1 mm thick LYSO crystal with the same density as the BGO crystal. Therefore for a point source in a human body 95 cm from head to thighs, covered by the 2m long EXPLORER or by the 150 cm long 3D-CBS you can expect a better sensitivity than 150 Bq on the 3D-CBS <***   As an aside, there seems to be a disconnect between pages 1 and 2 of the summary. In page 1, the electronics are described as being 16x16x16 cm. In page 2 the electronics are in two 8U racks.

This alone would be roughly 70x50cm for the front panel area.” ***>The two 8U racks includes data acquisition, A/D converters, power supplies, etc. When I mention the electronics in page 1 I am referring to the heart of the system that is executing the algorithm to calculate the total energy, clustering, x, y, z coordinates of the incident photon and photon’s arrival time. This electronics to provide an efficient execution of the photon detection algorithm is contained in 16x16x16cm <***