Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To compare CT isocenter accuracy, patient dose, and scan time in adults imaged with and without use of a 3D camera. METHOD/METHODS:571 CT examinations utilizing a 3D camera for initial patient positioning (optional radiographer isocenter adjustment) and 504 examinations scanned without the camera between 10/1/2018 and 3/19/2019 were retrospectively identified. All exams were chest or abdominopelvic CTs. The isocenters of these exams were compared with the true isocenters defined as the manually delineated centroid of the body in the CT volume. The size specific dose estimate (SSDE) (mGy) of radiation dose obtained from departmental software for the 4 most common protocols on one CT scanner was compared before and after implementation of the 3D camera. The times required for the entire scan and just the topogram "scout" were compared with and without the 3D camera for noncontrast chest and abdominopelvic CT enterography protocols. 2-tailed t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used (P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance). RESULTS:The deviation from true isocenter was 6.8 ± 6.1 mm (P = 0.043) and 16.3 ± 14.0 mm (P < 0.01) with and without the 3D camera, respectively (P < 0.01). CT radiographers accepted isocenter location without alteration in 93 % of examinations. Average SSDE savings with the 3D camera ranged 1.0-2.4 mGy (21-31 %) for the 4 most commonly performed protocols (p < 0.01). Median scout time savings was 32 s (Camera vs. No-Camera cohorts) (P < 0.01). Average noncontrast chest CT and CT enterography scan time savings were 19 s and 17 s with the 3D camera, respectively (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:The 3D camera improved accuracy of patient positioning while reducing radiation dose and examination time. Implementation of a 3D camera helps standardize workflow in a busy clinical practice.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To assess gender balance amongst invited speakers at 2 national radiology conferences over the past decade. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:The 2009, 2014, and 2019 Association of University Radiologists (AUR) and American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) conference programs were evaluated for the number and gender of invited speakers, as well as various presentation characteristics. Gender balance was stratified across conferences and years. RESULTS:The final analysis included 1657 invited speakers and 45, 602 minutes of presentation. AUR showed a nonsignificant increase in the percent of presentations by women from 42.2% to 46.5% and in the percent of distinct female presenters from 41.6% to 46.0%. For ARRS, percentage of female presenters varied minimally from 36.1% to 38.2%. In AUR 2009, female presenters spoke on average 5.7min less than men (P= 0.042) and 6.5% of women gave lectures over 30 minutes vs 22.2% of men (P = 0.032). Subsequent AUR and ARRS conferences did not demonstrate presentation length disparities. For AUR, no keynote female speaker was identified. For ARRS, there was no significant difference in percentage of keynote speakers based on gender (P ≥0.516). A disproportionately high percentage of presentations before 8am (44.4%-66.7%) were by women. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Female representation was greater than among the overall radiology workforce, highlighting a role of national societies in promoting female radiologists. Nonetheless, such representation is confounded by disproportionate underrepresentation in visibility of invited talks. While improvement in some presentation measures were observed, continued efforts are warranted to promote equal opportunities for female radiologists at national conferences.