Faculty Bibliography

Purpose To analyze the cost effectiveness of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) risk stratification guidelines versus magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiopancreatography-based treatment of patients with possible choledocholithiasis. Materials and Methods A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare cost and effectiveness of three diagnostic strategies for gallstone disease with possible choledocholithiasis: noncontrast MR cholangiopancreatography, contrast material-enhanced MR imaging/MR cholangiopancreatography, and ASGE risk stratification guidelines for diagnostic evaluation recommending endoscopy (high risk), MR cholangiopancreatography (intermediate risk), or no test (low risk). Analysis was performed from a U.S. health system perspective over 1-year and lifetime horizons. The model accounted for benign and malignant causes of biliary obstruction and procedural complications. Cost information was based on Medicare reimbursements. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of parameter variability on model results. Results Noncontrast MR cholangiopancreatography was most cost-effective in 45-55-year-old patients (less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained), while contrast-enhanced MR imaging was favored in younger adults. Risk-stratified testing was less costly than MR cholangiopancreatography, with long-term savings of $1870 and $2068 versus noncontrast and contrast-enhanced MR cholangiopancreatography, respectively, but was also less effective (-0.1814, -0.1831 QALY, respectively). The lifetime incremental cost per QALY for noncontrast MR cholangiopancreatography was $10 311. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging was favored with pretest probabilities of biliary stricture or malignancy 0%-73% for patients aged 20-44 years. For patients older than 55 years, ASGE guidelines maximized QALYs at the lowest cost. Conclusion Although adults older than 55 years of age are optimally evaluated by using ASGE guidelines, younger patients suspected of having acute biliary obstruction likely benefit from MR cholangiopancreatography rather than risk-stratified diagnostic imaging because of improved detection of choledocholithiasis and alternative causes of biliary obstruction. (c) RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess differences in patient distress, risk perception, and treatment preferences for incidental renal findings with descriptive versus combined descriptive and numeric graphical risk information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized survey study was conducted for adult patients about to undergo outpatient imaging studies at a large urban academic institution. Two survey arms contained either descriptive or a combination of descriptive and numeric graphical risk information about three hypothetical incidental renal findings at CT: 2-cm (low risk) and 5-cm (high risk) renal tumors and a 2-cm (low risk) renal artery aneurysm. The main outcomes were patient distress, perceived risk (qualitative and quantitative), treatment preference, and valuation of lesion discovery. RESULTS: Of 374 patients, 299 participated (79.9% response rate). With inclusion of numeric and graphical, rather than only descriptive, risk information about disease progression for a 2-cm renal tumor, patients reported less worry (3.56 vs 4.12 on a 5-point scale; p < 0.001) and favored surgical consultation less often (29.3% vs 46.9%; p = 0.003). The proportion choosing surgical consultation for the 2-cm renal tumor decreased to a similar level as for the renal artery aneurysm with numeric risk information (29.3% [95% CI, 21.7-36.8%] and 27.9% [95% CI, 20.5-35.3%], respectively). Patients overestimated the absolute risk of adverse events regardless of risk information type, but significantly more so when given descriptive information only, and valued the discovery of lesions regardless of risk information type (range, 4.41-4.81 on a 5-point scale). CONCLUSION: Numeric graphical risk communication for patients about incidental renal lesions may facilitate accurate risk comprehension and support patients in informed decision making.

Provided methodologic training, more imagers can contribute to the evidence basis on improved health outcomes and value in diagnostic imaging. The Value of Imaging Through Comparative Effectiveness Research Program was developed to provide hands-on, practical training in five core areas for comparative effectiveness and big biomedical data research: decision analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, evidence synthesis, big data principles, and applications of big data analytics. The program's mixed format consists of web-based modules for asynchronous learning as well as in-person sessions for practical skills and group discussion. Seven diagnostic radiology subspecialties and cardiology are represented in the first group of program participants, showing the collective potential for greater depth of comparative effectiveness research in the imaging community.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the association between census-tract level measures of social vulnerability and residential segregation and IPN follow up. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study included patients with IPN ≥6 mm in size or multiple subsolid/ground-glass IPNs <6 mm (with non-optional follow-up recommendations) diagnosed between January 1, 2018 and December 30, 2019 at a large urban tertiary center and followed ≥two years. Geographic sociodemographic context was characterized by 2018 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and the Index of Concentration at the Extreme (ICE), categorized in quartiles. Multivariable binomial regression models were utilized with a primary outcome of inappropriate IPN follow up (late or no follow up). Models were also stratified by nodule risk. RESULTS:The study consisted of 2,492 patients (mean age 65.6 years +/- 12.6 years; 1,361 women). Top-quartile SVI patients were more likely to have inappropriate follow up (Risk Ratio [RR]: 1.24, 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI], 1.12-1.36]), compared with the bottom quartile; risk was also elevated in top-quartile SVI subcategories of Socioeconomic Status (RR: 1.23, 95% CI, 1.13-1.34), Minority Status and Language (RR: 1.24, 95% CI, 1.03-1.48), Housing and Transportation (RR: 1.13, 95% CI, 1.02-1.26), and ICE (RR: 1.20, 95% CI, 1.11-1.30). Further, top-quartile ICE was associated with greater risk of inappropriate follow up among high-risk vs. lower-risk IPN (1.33 [1.18-1.50] vs. 1.13 [1.02-1.25]), respectively, P for interaction= 0.017). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Local social vulnerability and residential segregation are associated with inappropriate IPN follow up and may inform policy or interventions tailored for neighborhoods.

BACKGROUND:Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is highly prevalent, affecting approximately 11% of U.S. adults. Multiple studies have evaluated a potential association between CKD and urinary tract malignancies. Summary estimates of urinary tract malignancy risk in CKD patients with and without common co-existing conditions may guide clinical practice recommendations. METHODS:Four electronic databases were searched for original cohort studies evaluating the association between CKD and urinary tract cancers (kidney cancer and urothelial carcinoma) through May 25, 2023, in persons with at least moderate CKD and no dialysis or kidney transplantation. Quality assessment was performed for studies meeting inclusion criteria using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis with a random-effects model was performed for unadjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) as well as adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for confounding conditions (diabetes, hypertension, and/or tobacco use), shown to have association with kidney cancer and urothelial carcinoma. Sub-analysis was conducted for estimates associated with CKD stages separately. RESULTS:Six cohort studies with 8 617 563 persons were included. Overall, methodological quality of the studies was good. CKD was associated with both higher unadjusted incidence and adjusted hazard of kidney cancer (IRR, 3.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.32-4.88; aHR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.77-2.36) and urothelial cancer (IRR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.44-6.40; aHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.22-1.68) compared with persons without CKD. Examining incident urinary tract cancers by CKD severity, risks were elevated in stage 3 CKD (kidney aHR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.56-2.30; urothelial carcinoma aHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18-1.65) as well as in stages 4/5 CKD (kidney cancer aHR, 2.30; 95% CI, 2.00-2.66, UC aHR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04-1.49). CONCLUSIONS:Even moderate CKD is associated with elevated risk of kidney cancer and UC. Providers should consider these elevated risks when managing individuals with CKD, particularly when considering evaluation for the presence and etiology of hematuria.

Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies can provide the best available evidence to inform decisions regarding the use of a diagnostic test. In this guide, the authors provide a practical approach for clinicians to appraise diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews and apply their results to patient care. The first step is to identify an appropriate systematic review with a research question matching the clinical scenario. The user should evaluate the rigor of the review methods to evaluate its credibility (Did the review use clearly defined eligibility criteria, a comprehensive search strategy, structured data collection, risk of bias and applicability appraisal, and appropriate meta-analysis methods?). If the review is credible, the next step is to decide whether the diagnostic performance is adequate for clinical use (Do sensitivity and specificity estimates exceed the threshold that makes them useful in clinical practice? Are these estimates sufficiently precise? Is variability in the estimates of diagnostic accuracy across studies explained?). Diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews that are judged to be credible and provide diagnostic accuracy estimates with sufficient certainty and relevance are the most useful to inform patient care. This review discusses comparative, noncomparative, and emerging approaches to systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy using a clinical scenario and examples based on recent publications.

PURPOSE:Actionable incidental findings (AIFs) are common in radiologic imaging. Imaging is commonly performed in emergency department (ED) visits, and AIFs are frequently encountered, but the ED presents unique challenges for communication and follow-up of these findings. The authors formed a multidisciplinary panel to seek consensus regarding best practices in the reporting, communication, and follow-up of AIFs on ED imaging tests. METHODS:A 15-member panel was formed, nominated by the ACR and American College of Emergency Physicians, to represent radiologists, emergency physicians, patients, and those involved in health care systems and quality. A modified Delphi process was used to identify areas of best practice and seek consensus. The panel identified four areas: (1) report elements and structure, (2) communication of findings with patients, (3) communication of findings with clinicians, and (4) follow-up and tracking systems. A survey was constructed to seek consensus and was anonymously administered in two rounds, with a priori agreement requiring at least 80% consensus. Discussion occurred after the first round, with readministration of questions where consensus was not initially achieved. RESULTS:Consensus was reached in the four areas identified. There was particularly strong consensus that AIFs represent a system-level issue, with need for approaches that do not depend on individual clinicians or patients to ensure communication and completion of recommended follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:This multidisciplinary collaboration represents consensus results on best practices regarding the reporting and communication of AIFs in the ED setting.

Economic evaluation for implementation science merits unique considerations for a local context, including the main audience of local decision makers. This local context is in contrast with traditional methods for developing coverage policy for medical tests and interventions, which typically emphasize benefits and costs more broadly, for society. Regardless of the strength of evidence backing the efficacy or effectiveness of a clinical intervention, local context is paramount when implementing evidence-based practices. Understanding the costs throughout the processes of implementing a program will inform the decision of whether to plan for and adopt the program, how to sustain the program, and whether to scale up widely. To guide economic evaluation for implementation of evidence-based imaging practices, we describe approaches that consider local stakeholders' needs and connect these with outcomes of cost and clinical utility. Illustrative examples of implementation strategies and economic evaluation are explored in areas of cancer screening and care delivery.