Faculty Bibliography

The internet has become an integral component of daily life, with its content broadly grouped into social media and non-social online content. The use of social media, comprising interactive information sharing and networking tools, has proliferated in radiology, with as many as 85% of radiologists utilizing social media and adoption by both private and academic practices. In radiology, social media has been used to increase patient and public awareness of the specialty, establish a professional brand, share scholarly activity, aid in professional development and recruitment, improve communication, and increase engagement during scientific meetings. Organizations like the Society of Abdominal Radiology have increased the visibility of abdominal and pelvic radiology through their activity on social media; however, individual radiologists are integral to this function as well. In this article, we outline a stepwise approach to the individual use of social media, with practical tips for radiologists interested in effectively engaging the plethora of social media and non-social online content available. We also briefly discuss an approach to performing research using publicly available online media.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Diversity is an identified priority amongst governing medical bodies. We systematically analyzed public membership diversity data posted by North American radiology societies. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Two independent study members reviewed North American radiology society websites to collect public data on membership diversity, specifically related to gender, race, and sexual orientation or gender identity, and categorized data using a coding system. Supplemental searches were conducted to confirm findings. Study team members created accounts on each society website to identify whether diversity data was collected during member enrollment. RESULTS:We reviewed a total of 26 society websites, with median 1500 members (range 110-54,600). We categorized five societies as "diversity leaders" based on having diversity statement(s), diversity initiatives, and diversity publication(s). While 62%, 8%, and 0% of societies collected data on gender, race, and sexual orientation or gender identity, respectively, no societies posted membership composition of these groups. Fourty-six percent of societies had membership diversity statement(s) on their webpages. Fifty-four percent had initiative(s) targeted at diversity (23% had multiple). Fifty percent had membership diversity publication(s). Sexual orientation and gender identity minority members were least frequently specified as beneficiaries of diversity statements, initiatives, and publications. Societies with larger memberships were more likely to have membership diversity initiatives (p = 0.01), journal articles on membership diversity (p = 0.005), and be "diversity leaders" (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Public support of membership diversity by many North American radiology societies, especially those with fewer members, is lacking. Identified "diversity leaders" can serve as models for societies aiming to establish their commitment to diversity.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Radiology topics receive substantial online media attention, with prior studies focusing on social media platform coverage. We used Google Alerts, a content change detection and notification service, to prospectively analyze new radiology-related content appearing on the internet. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:An automated notification was created on Google Alerts for the search term "radiology," sending the user emails with up to 3 new links daily. All links from November 2019 through April 2020 were assessed by 2 of 3 independent raters using a coding system to classify the content source and primary topic of discussion. The top 5 primary topics were retrospectively evaluated to identify prevalent subcategories. Content viewing restrictions were documented. RESULTS:526 links were accessed. The majority (68%) of links were created by non-radiology lay press, followed by radiology-related lay press (28%), university-based publications (2%), and professional society websites (2%). The primary topic of these links most frequently related to market trends (28%), promotional material (20%), COVID-19 (13%), artificial intelligence (8%), and new technology or equipment (5%). 15% of links discussed a topic sourced from another article, such as a peer-reviewed journal, though only 2 linked directly to the journal itself. 8% of links had content viewing restrictions. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:New radiology content was largely disseminated via non-radiology news sources; radiologists should therefore ensure their research and viewpoints are presented in these outlets. Google Alerts may be a useful tool to stay abreast of the most current public radiology subject matters, especially during these times of social isolation and rapidly evolving clinical practice.

Background Active surveillance (AS) is the recommended treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Surveillance varies in MRI, frequency of follow-up, and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score that would repeat biopsy. Purpose To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of AS strategies for low-risk PC with versus without MRI. Materials and Methods This study developed a mathematical model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies in a simulation of men with a diagnosis of low-risk PC. The following strategies were compared: watchful waiting, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and annual biopsy without MRI, and PSA testing and MRI with varied PI-RADS thresholds for biopsy. MRI strategies differed regarding scheduling and use of PI-RADS score of at least 3, or a PI-RADS score of at least 4 to indicate the need for biopsy. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated by using microsimulation. Sensitivity analysis was used to assess the impact of varying parameter values on results. Results For the base case of 60-year-old men, all strategies incorporating prostate MRI extended QALYs and life-years compared with watchful waiting and non-MRI strategies. Annual MRI strategies yielded 16.19 QALYs, annual biopsy with no MRI yielded 16.14 QALYs, and watchful waiting yielded 15.94 QALYs. Annual MRI with PI-RADS score of at least 3 or of at least 4 as the biopsy threshold and annual MRI with biopsy even after MRI with negative findings offered similar QALYs and the same unadjusted life expectancy: 23.05 life-years. However, a PI-RADS score of at least 4 yielded 42% fewer lifetime biopsies. With a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY, annual MRI with biopsy for lesions with PI-RADS scores of 4 or greater was most cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $67 221 per QALY). Age, treatment type, risk of initial grade misclassification, and quality-of-life impact of procedural complications affected results. Conclusion The use of active surveillance (AS) with biopsy decisions guided by findings from annual MRI reduces the number of biopsies while preserving life expectancy and quality of life. Biopsy in lesions with PI-RADS scores of 4 or greater is likely the most cost-effective AS strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer who are younger than 70 years. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

BACKGROUND:There is a lack of consensus in optimal management of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in patients with cirrhosis. The purpose of this study is to compare the safety and thrombosis burden change for cirrhotic patients with non-tumoral PVT managed by transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) only, anticoagulation only, or no treatment. METHODS:This single-center retrospective study evaluated 52 patients with cirrhosis and non-tumoral PVT managed by TIPS only (14), anticoagulation only (11), or no treatment (27). The demographic, clinical, and imaging data for patients were collected. The portomesenteric thrombosis burden and liver function tests at early follow-up (6-9 months) and late follow-up (9-16 months) were compared to the baseline. Adverse events including bleeding and encephalopathy were recorded. RESULTS:= 0.007). No bleeding complications attributable to anticoagulation were observed. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:TIPS decreased portomesenteric thrombus burden compared to anticoagulation or no treatment for cirrhotic patients with PVT. Both TIPS and anticoagulation were safe therapies.

BACKGROUND:MR is an important imaging modality for evaluating musculoskeletal malignancies owing to its high soft tissue contrast and its ability to acquire multiparametric information. PET provides quantitative molecular and physiologic information and is a critical tool in the diagnosis and staging of several malignancies. PET/MR, which can take advantage of its constituent modalities, is uniquely suited for evaluating skeletal metastases. We reviewed the current evidence of PET/MR in assessing for skeletal metastases and provided recommendations for its use. METHODS:We searched for the peer reviewed literature related to the usage of PET/MR in the settings of osseous metastases. In addition, expert opinions, practices, and protocols of major research institutions performing research on PET/MR of skeletal metastases were considered. RESULTS:Peer-reviewed published literature was included. Nuclear medicine and radiology experts, including those from 13 major PET/MR centers, shared the gained expertise on PET/MR use for evaluating skeletal metastases and contributed to a consensus expert opinion statement. [18F]-FDG and non [18F]-FDG PET/MR may provide key advantages over PET/CT in the evaluation for osseous metastases in several primary malignancies. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:PET/MR should be considered for staging of malignancies where there is a high likelihood of osseous metastatic disease based on the characteristics of the primary malignancy, hight clinical suspicious and in case, where the presence of osseous metastases will have an impact on patient management. Appropriate choice of tumor-specific radiopharmaceuticals, as well as stringent adherence to PET and MR protocols, should be employed.

OBJECTIVE:Social media use in radiology has been well documented, primarily pertaining to Twitter and Facebook. We evaluated radiology-related posts and users on Reddit, a popular platform with users who post and discuss content in a message-board format. METHODS:Two subreddits were reviewed: r/radiology (top 100 posts) and r/medicine (search queries: radiology, x-ray, CT scan, MRI, ultrasound, PET scan, and mammogram). Post aims and user types were categorized. Kruskal-Wallis H and post-hoc pairwise Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to assess user and post types associated with greater post comments and points. RESULTS:A total of 323 posts submitted by 258 unique users over a 9 year period with a median of 21 comments (range 0-568) and 119 points (0-1877) were reviewed. These were most commonly posted by physicians (41%), radiologic technologists (18%), and medical students (12%). Radiologists represented 30% of physicians and 12% of all users. Posts by physicians had significantly higher median comments and points than half of other user categories (P = <0.01-0.04). Most posts related to imaging case presentations (25%), comedic content (18%), and imaging appropriateness (10%). The most common radiology subspecialties featured were musculoskeletal (26%), neuroradiology (22%), abdominal (21%), and cardiothoracic (20%). Although only 1% of posts featured wellness and burnout, they had significantly higher median comments and points than 14 of 15 and 15 of 15 other post categories, respectively (P = <0.01-0.03). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Reddit hosts a diverse community providing an interface for education, consultation, and humor. Radiologists represent a small, although impactful, portion of this community and should embrace Reddit as an avenue for engagement.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:TikTok, the fastest growing social media application worldwide, has been infrequently studied in medicine. We analyzed the top radiology-related posts on TikTok in order to describe opportunities for radiology engagement. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We retrieved the top 300 posts meeting the search criteria "radiology." User- and post-related data were categorized based on a prespecified coding system. Descriptive statistics were reported. Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to assess for differences in followers, plays, likes, and comments among posts and users. RESULTS:284 working posts were broadcast by 187 unique users with median 119 followers (interquartile range [IQR]: 31-1,206) and 20 posts (IQR: 7-49). Most (81%, 151/187) were nonphysician radiology personnel, while only 5% (9/187) were radiologists. Posts by radiologists had more plays than those by nonphysician radiology personnel (median 3643 vs 1282, P = 0.001). The 284 posts had median 1520 plays (IQR 429-4374), 60 likes (IQR 18-272), and 2 comments (IQR 0-9). Most posts were work-related (184/284, 65%), followed by clinical (68/284, 24%), personal (30/284, 11%), or promotional (2/284, 1%). However, posts by radiologists were mostly clinical (65%, 31/48) and represented a large majority of posted imaging cases (29/33, 88%). Posts about COVID-19 represented 38% (107/284) of the study sample and 48% (93/193) of posts after the first U.S. COVID-19 case COVID-19 posts had significantly more comments (3 vs. 2, P = 0.034) and more likes approaching significance (89 vs 51, P = 0.134) than non-COVID-19 posts. CONCLUSIONS:Though radiologists represent a minority of TikTok users their post represent the majority of this platform's clinical content. This presents an important opportunity for radiologists to utilize TikTok for contemporary, unique content creation and engagement with nonphysician radiology personnel.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To perform a systematic review on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of renal tumor subtypes and meta-analysis on the diagnostic performance of ADC for differentiation of localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) from other renal tumor types. METHODS:Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published until May 1, 2019, that reported ADC values of renal tumors. Methodological quality was evaluated. For the meta-analysis on diagnostic test accuracy of ADC for differentiation of ccRCC from other renal lesions, we applied a bivariate random-effects model and compared two subgroups of ADC measurement with vs. without cystic and necrotic areas. RESULTS:We included 48 studies (2588 lesions) in the systematic review and 13 studies (1126 lesions) in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in ADC of renal parenchyma using b values of 0-800 vs. 0-1000 (p = 0.08). ADC measured on selected portions (sADC) excluding cystic and necrotic areas differed significantly from whole-lesion ADC (wADC) (p = 0.002). Compared to ccRCC, minimal-fat angiomyolipoma, papillary RCC, and chromophobe RCC showed significantly lower sADC while oncocytoma exhibited higher sADC. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity to differentiate ccRCC from other tumors were 80% (95% CI, 0.76-0.88) and 78% (95% CI, 0.64-0.89), respectively, for sADC and 77% (95% CI, 0.59-0.90) and 77% (95% CI, 0.69-0.86) for wADC. sADC offered a higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve than wADC (0.852 vs. 0.785, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:ADC values of kidney tumors that exclude cystic or necrotic areas more accurately differentiate ccRCC from other renal tumor types than whole-lesion ADC values. KEY POINTS/CONCLUSIONS:• Selective ADC of renal tumors, excluding cystic and necrotic areas, provides better discriminatory ability than whole-lesion ADC to differentiate clear cell RCC from other renal lesions, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.852 vs. 0.785, respectively (p = 0.02). • Selective ADC of renal masses provides moderate sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 78%, respectively, for differentiation of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from papillary RCC, chromophobe RCC, oncocytoma, and minimal-fat angiomyolipoma. • Selective ADC excluding cystic and necrotic areas are preferable to whole-lesion ADC as an additional tool to multiphasic MRI to differentiate clear cell RCC from other renal lesions whether the highest b value is 800 or 1000.

Diverticular disease of the colon and small bowel is an important cause of pathology leading to emergency department visits and urgent gastrointestinal surgery. CT is a highly sensitive and specific modality for the diagnosis of acute diverticulitis and its complications as well as for the exclusion of alternate causes of pathology. Ultrasound, MRI and virtual CT colonoscopy have important adjunct roles for screening and workup of complications in specific patient populations. While diverticular disease most commonly involves the descending and sigmoid colon, it can also affect the proximal colon and small bowel. Acute diverticulitis may be categorized as uncomplicated or complicated according to the degree of inflammatory changes and related complications it induces, although some degree of overlap exists in clinical practice. Uncomplicated diverticulitis is classically characterized by localized inflammation surrounding a diverticulum ranging from wall thickening and phlegmonous change to the development of small, localized pericolic abscesses. Complicated forms of disease manifest with larger pericolic and distant abscesses, fistulae to adjacent organs, perforation, and peritonitis. Recurrent episodes of diverticulitis may lead to muscular hypertrophy of the bowel wall and luminal narrowing, potentially leading to bowel obstruction. Several imaging features may help to differentiate diverticulitis from colonic malignancy, however this remains a diagnostic imaging challenge that often requires further evaluation with colonoscopy. In this review, we discuss the pathophysiology and key imaging features of acute diverticulitis and its complications. We explore both common and uncommon presentations of the disease involving the colon and small bowel, acute and chronic manifestations of disease, and pitfalls to recognize when imaging alone may be insufficient to distinguish benign from malignant.