Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Though prior studies have proven CTC's efficacy in outpatients, its utility in the inpatient setting has not been studied. We evaluated the efficacy of a modified CTC protocol in the inpatient setting, primarily for patients awaiting organ transplantation. METHODS:This retrospective study compared a group of inpatient CTCs from 2019 to 2021 and a randomly selected, age-matched 2:1 control group of outpatient CTCs. Both groups were assessed based on established criteria from literature. RESULTS:10 % (63/652) of CTCs were performed in the inpatient setting, of which 29 were excluded, yielding 34 inpatient cases. 90 % (589/652) of CTCs were performed in the outpatient setting, from which 68 randomly selected, age-matched patients were selected as controls. Significantly more (24 %, 8/34) inpatients expired due to extracolonic causes (vs. 1 %, 1/68 outpatients, p < 0.05). 62 % (21/34) of inpatient CTCs were reported as diagnostic (vs. 74 %, 50/68 outpatient, p = 0.22). Significantly more inpatients (12 %, 4/34) than outpatients (1 %, 1/68) were unable to tolerate two imaging positions (p = 0.02). Subsequent colonoscopy was performed in 24 % (8/34) of inpatients, revealing pathologies including colonic polyps and non-bleeding ulcers. Inpatient CTCs had lower average quality scores, significant for one reviewer (p = 0.009-0.054). Inpatients had a larger number of segments with: >25 % residual fluid (1.22-1.28 inpatients vs. 0.60-0.73 outpatients, p = 0.003-0.026) and inadequate fluid tagging (1.10 inpatients vs. 0.49 outpatients, p = 0.046-0.0501). Distention was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.317-0.410). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Quality of inpatient CTC was inferior to outpatient CTCs across several metrics. 24 % undergoing inpatient CTC died of extracolonic causes within 22 months, and most did not have findings warranting intervention, questioning the value of this difficult exam in this patient population. Routine CT may be sufficient to exclude large or metastatic colonic lesions precluding transplant.

BACKGROUND:Minimally invasive focal therapy of low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer is becoming more common and has demonstrated lower morbidity compared to other treatments. Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has the potential to be an effective posttreatment evaluation method for residual/recurrent neoplasm. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the ability of mpMRI to detect residual/recurrent neoplasm after focal therapy treatment of prostate cancer using a 3-point Likert scale. METHODS:This retrospective study included patients who underwent focal therapy utilizing cryoablation, high-frequency ultrasound, and radiofrequency ablation for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer with baseline mpMRI and biopsy and a 6- to 12-month follow-up mpMRI and biopsy. Three abdominal fellowship-trained readers were asked to evaluate the follow-up mpMRI utilizing a 3-point Likert scale based on the level of suspicion as "nonviable," "equivocal," or "viable." Diagnostic statistics and Light's κ for interreader variability were calculated. RESULTS:A total of 142 patients were included (mean age, 65 ± 7 years). When considering "equivocal" or "viable" as positive, the overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for detecting recurrent grade group (GG) 2 or greater disease for Reader 1 were 0.47, 0.83, 0.24, 0.93, and 0.65; for Reader 2, 0.73, 0.75, 0.26, 0.96, and 0.74; and for Reader 3, 0.73, 0.57, 0.17, 0.95, and 0.65. When considering "viable" as positive, the overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC for Reader 1 were 0.47, 0.92, 0.41, 0.94, and 0.69; for Reader 2, 0.33, 0.97, 0.56, 0.93, and 0.65; and for Reader 3, 0.53, 0.84, 0.29, 0.94, and 0.69. κ was 0.39. CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that DCE and DWI are the most important sequences in mpMRI and demonstrates the efficacy of utilizing a 3-point grading system in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer after focal therapy. CLINICAL IMPACT/CONCLUSIONS:mpMRI can be used to monitor for residual/recurrent disease after focal therapy.

OBJECTIVE:To retrospectively compare inter- and intra-reader agreement of abbreviated MRCP (aMRCP) with comprehensive MRI (cMRCP) protocol for detection of worrisome features, high-risk stigmata, and concomitant pancreatic cancer in pancreatic cyst surveillance. METHODS:151 patients (104 women, mean age: 69[10] years) with baseline and follow-up contrast-enhanced MRIs were included. This comprised 138 patients under cyst surveillance with 5-year follow-up showing no pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), 6 with pancreatic cystic lesion-derived malignancy, and 7 with concomitant PDAC. The aMRCP protocol used four sequences (axial and coronal Half-Fourier Single-shot Turbo-spin-Echo, axial T1 fat-saturated pre-contrast, and 3D-MRCP), while cMRCP included all standard sequences, including post-contrast. Three blinded abdominal radiologists assessed baseline cyst characteristics, worrisome features, high-risk stigmata, and PDAC signs using both aMRCP and cMRCP, with a 2-week washout period. Intra- and inter-reader agreement were calculated using Fleiss' multi-rater kappa and Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC). 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS:Cyst size, growth, and abrupt main pancreatic duct transition had strong intra- and inter-reader agreement. Intra-reader agreement was ICC = 0.93-0.99 for cyst size, ICC = 0.71-1.00 for cyst growth, and kappa = 0.83-1.00 for abrupt duct transition. Inter-reader agreement for cyst size was ICC = 0.86 (aMRCP) and ICC = 0.83 (cMRCP), and for abrupt duct transition was kappa = 0.84 (aMRCP) and kappa = 0.69 (cMRCP). Thickened cyst wall, mural nodule and cyst-duct communication demonstrated varying intra-reader agreements and poor inter-reader agreements. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:aMRCP showed high intra- and inter-reader agreement for most pancreatic cyst parameters that highly rely on T2-weighted sequences.

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.

The visceral vasculature is inextricably intertwined with abdominopelvic disease staging, spread, and management in routine and emergent cases. Comprehensive evaluation requires specialized imaging techniques for abnormality detection and characterization. Vascular pathology is often encountered on nondedicated routine imaging examinations, which may obscure, mimic, or confound many vascular diagnoses. This review highlights normal arterial, portal venous, and systemic venous anatomy and clinically relevant variants; diagnostic pitfalls related to image-acquisition technique and disease mimics; and characteristics of common and rare vascular diseases to empower radiologists to confidently interpret the vascular findings and avoid misdiagnosis.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to compare the image quality of portal venous phase-derived virtual noncontrast (VNC) images from photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT) with energy-integrating dual-energy computed tomography (EI-DECT) in the same patient using quantitative and qualitative analyses. METHODS:Consecutive patients retrospectively identified with available portal venous phase-derived VNC images from both PCCT and EI-DECT were included. Patients without available VNC in picture archiving and communication system in PCCT or prior EI-DECT and non-portal venous phase acquisitions were excluded. Three fellowship-trained radiologists blinded to VNC source qualitatively assessed VNC images on a 5-point scale for overall image quality, image noise, small structure delineation, noise texture, artifacts, and degree of iodine removal. Quantitative assessment used region-of-interest measurements within the aorta at 4 standard locations, both psoas muscles, both renal cortices, spleen, retroperitoneal fat, and inferior vena cava. Attenuation (Hounsfield unit), quantitative noise (Hounsfield unit SD), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) (CNRvascular, CNRkidney, CNRspleen, CNRfat), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (SNRvascular, SNRkidney, SNRspleen, SNRfat), and radiation dose were compared between PCCT and EI-DECT with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. RESULTS:A total of 74 patients (27 men; mean ± SD age, 63 ± 13 years) were included. Computed tomography dose index volumes for PCCT and EI-DECT were 9.2 ± 3.5 mGy and 9.4 ± 9.0 mGy, respectively (P = 0.06). Qualitatively, PCCT VNC images had better overall image quality, image noise, small structure delineation, noise texture, and fewer artifacts (all P < 0.00001). Virtual noncontrast images from PCCT had lower attenuation (all P < 0.05), noise (P = 0.006), and higher CNR (P < 0.0001-0.04). Contrast-enhanced structures had lower SNR on PCCT (P = 0.001, 0.002), reflecting greater contrast removal. The SNRfat (nonenhancing) was higher for PCCT than EI-DECT (P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS:Virtual noncontrast images from PCCT had improved image quality, lower noise, improved CNR and SNR compared with those derived from EI-DECT.

Current disparities in the access to diagnostic imaging for Black patients and the underrepresentation of Black physicians in radiology, relative to their representation in the general U.S. population, reflect contemporary consequences of historical anti-Black discrimination. These disparities have existed within the field of radiology and professional medical organizations since their inception. Explicit and implicit racism against Black patients and physicians was institutional policy in the early 20th century when radiology was being developed as a clinical medical field. Early radiology organizations also embraced this structural discrimination, creating strong barriers to professional Black radiologist involvement. Nevertheless, there were numerous pioneering Black radiologists who advanced scholarship, patient care, and diversity within medicine and radiology during the early 20th century. This work remains important in the present day, as race-based health care disparities persist and continue to decrease the quality of radiology-delivered patient care. There are also structural barriers within radiology affecting workforce diversity that negatively impact marginalized groups. Multiple opportunities exist today for antiracism work to improve quality of care and to apply standards of social justice and health equity to the field of radiology. An initial step is to expand education on the disparities in access to imaging and health care among Black patients. Institutional interventions include implementing community-based outreach and applying antibias methodology in artificial intelligence algorithms, while systemic interventions include identifying national race-based quality measures and ensuring imaging guidelines properly address the unique cancer risks in the Black patient population. These approaches reflect some of the strategies that may mutually serve to address health care disparities in radiology. ^© RSNA, 2023 See the invited commentary by Scott in this issue. Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.