Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

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.

Laparoscopic myomectomy, a common gynecologic operation in premenopausal women, has become heavily regulated since 2014 following the dissemination of unsuspected uterine leiomyosarcoma (LMS) throughout the pelvis of a physician treated for symptomatic leiomyoma. Research since that time suggests a higher prevalence than previously suspected of uterine LMS in resected masses presumed to represent leiomyoma, as high as one in 770 women (0.13%). Though rare, the dissemination of an aggressive malignant neoplasm due to noncontained electromechanical morcellation in laparoscopic myomectomy is a devastating outcome. Gynecologic surgeons' desire for an evidence-based, noninvasive evaluation for LMS is driven by a clear need to avoid such harms while maintaining the availability of minimally invasive surgery for symptomatic leiomyoma. Laparoscopic gynecologists could rely upon the distinction of higher-risk uterine masses preoperatively to plan oncologic surgery (ie, potential hysterectomy) for patients with elevated risk for LMS and, conversely, to safely offer women with no or minimal indicators of elevated risk the fertility-preserving laparoscopic myomectomy. MRI evaluation for LMS may potentially serve this purpose in symptomatic women with leiomyomas. This evidence review and consensus statement defines imaging and disease-related terms to allow more uniform and reliable interpretation and identifies the highest priorities for future research on LMS evaluation.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) has a high sensitivity in detecting breast cancer but often leads to unnecessary biopsies and patient workup. We used a deep learning (DL) system to improve the overall accuracy of breast cancer diagnosis and personalize management of patients undergoing DCE-MRI. On the internal test set (n = 3936 exams), our system achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.93). In a retrospective reader study, there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.19) between five board-certified breast radiologists and the DL system (mean ΔAUROC, +0.04 in favor of the DL system). Radiologists' performance improved when their predictions were averaged with DL's predictions [mean ΔAUPRC (area under the precision-recall curve), +0.07]. We demonstrated the generalizability of the DL system using multiple datasets from Poland and the United States. An additional reader study on a Polish dataset showed that the DL system was as robust to distribution shift as radiologists. In subgroup analysis, we observed consistent results across different cancer subtypes and patient demographics. Using decision curve analysis, we showed that the DL system can reduce unnecessary biopsies in the range of clinically relevant risk thresholds. This would lead to avoiding biopsies yielding benign results in up to 20% of all patients with BI-RADS category 4 lesions. Last, we performed an error analysis, investigating situations where DL predictions were mostly incorrect. This exploratory work creates a foundation for deployment and prospective analysis of DL-based models for breast MRI.

BACKGROUND:Surgery is the most common treatment for localized small kidney masses (SKMs) up to 4 cm, despite a lack of evidence for improved overall survival. Nonsurgical management options are gaining recognition, as evidence supports the indolence of most SKMs. Decision aids (DAs) have been shown to improve patient comprehension of the trade-offs of treatment options and overall decision quality, and may improve consideration of all major options according to individual health priorities and preferences. OBJECTIVE:This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) primarily aims to evaluate the impact of a new web-based DA on treatment decisions for patients with SKM; that is, selection of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment options. Secondary objectives include an assessment of decision-making outcomes: decisional conflict, decision satisfaction, and an understanding of individual preferences for treatment that incorporate the trade-offs associated with surgical versus nonsurgical interventions. METHODS:Three phases comprise the construction and evaluation of a new web-based DA on SKM treatment. In phase 1, this DA was developed in print format through a multidisciplinary design committee incorporating patient focus groups. Phase 2 was an observational study on patient knowledge and decision-making measures after randomization to receive the printed DA or institutional educational materials, which identified further educational needs applied to a web-based DA. Phase 3 will preliminarily evaluate the web-based DA: in a pilot RCT, 50 adults diagnosed with SKMs will receive the web-based DA or an existing web-based institutional website at urology clinics at a large academic medical center. The web-based DA applies risk communication and information about diagnosis and treatment options, elicits preferences regarding treatment options, and provides a set of options to consider with their doctor based on a decision-analytic model of benefits/harm analysis that accounts for comorbidity, age group, and tumor features. Questionnaires and treatment decision data will be gathered before and after viewing the educational material. RESULTS:This phase will consist of a pilot RCT from August 2022 to January 2023 to establish feasibility and preliminarily evaluate decision outcomes. Previous study phases from 2018 to 2020 supported the feasibility of providing the printed DA in urology clinics before clinical consultation and demonstrated increased patient knowledge about the diagnosis and treatment options and greater likelihood of favoring nonsurgical treatment just before consultation. This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Recruitment will begin in August 2022. CONCLUSIONS:A web-based DA has been designed to address educational needs for patients making treatment decisions for SKM, accounting for comorbidities and treatment-related benefits and risks. Outcomes from the pilot trial will evaluate the potential of a web-based DA in personalizing treatment decisions and in helping patients weigh attributes of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment options for their SKMs. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05387863; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05387863. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)/UNASSIGNED:PRR1-10.2196/41451.