Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The aim of the study was to compare the distribution of Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System (PI-RADS) scores, interreader agreement, and diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1 for transition zone (TZ) lesions. METHODS:The study included 202 lesions in 202 patients who underwent 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging showing a TZ lesion that was later biopsied with magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion. Five abdominal imaging faculty reviewed T2-weighted imaging and high b value/apparent diffusion coefficient images in 2 sessions. Cases were randomized using a crossover design whereby half in the first session were reviewed using v2.0 and the other half using v2.1, and vice versa for the 2nd session. Readers provided T2-weighted imaging and DWI scores, from which PI-RADS scores were derived. RESULTS:Interreader agreement for all PI-RADS scores had κ of 0.37 (v2.0) and 0.26 (v2.1). For 4 readers, the percentage of lesions retrospectively scored PI-RADS 1 increased greater than 5% and PI-RADS 2 score decreased greater than 5% from v2.0 to v2.1. For 2 readers, the percentage scored PI-RADS 3 decreased greater than 5% and, for 2 readers, increased greater than 5%. The percentage of PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions changed less than 5% for all readers. For the 4 readers with increased frequency of PI-RADS 1 using v2.1, 4% to 16% were Gleason score ≥3 + 4 tumor. Frequency of Gleason score ≥3 + 4 in PI-RADS 3 lesions increased for 2 readers and decreased for 1 reader. Sensitivity of PI-RADS of 3 or greater for Gleason score ≥3 + 4 ranged 76% to 90% (v2.0) and 69% to 96% (v2.1). Specificity ranged 32% to 64% (v2.0) and 25% to 72% (v2.1). Positive predictive value ranged 43% to 55% (v2.0) and 41% to 58% (v2.1). Negative predictive value ranged 82% to 87% (v2.0) and 81% to 91% (v2.1). CONCLUSIONS:Poor interreader agreement and lack of improvement in diagnostic performance indicate an ongoing need to refine evaluation of TZ lesions.

OBJECTIVE:Texture features are proposed for classification and prognostication, with lacking information about variability. We assessed 3 T liver MRI feature variability. METHODS:Five volunteers underwent standard 3 T MRI, and repeated with identical and altered parameters. Two readers placed regions of interest using 3DSlicer. Repeatability (between standard and repeat scan), robustness (between standard and parameter changed scan), and reproducibility (two reader variation) were computed using coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS:67%, 49%, and 61% of features had good-to-excellent (CV ≤ 10%) repeatability on ADC, T1, and T2, respectively, least frequently for first order (19-35%). 22%, 19%, and 21% of features had good-to-excellent robustness on ADC, T1, and T2, respectively. 52%, 35%, and 25% of feature measurements had good-to-excellent inter-reader reproducibility on ADC, T1, and T2, respectively, with highest good-to-excellent reproducibility for first order features on ADC/T1. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We demonstrated large variations in texture features on 3 T liver MRI. Further study should evaluate methods to reduce variability.

Despite benefits of safety event reporting, few are trainee initiated. A comprehensive intervention was created to increase trainee reporting, partnering a trainee safety council with high-level faculty. Data were collected for 12 months pre intervention and 30 months post intervention, including short-term (1-12 mo) and long-term (13-30 mo) follow-up. A total of 2337 trainee events were submitted over the study period, primarily communication-related (40%) and on the medicine service (39%). Monthly submissions increased from 29.3 pre intervention to 66.2, 77.7, and 58.6 events/mo at post intervention, short-term follow-up, and long-term follow-up, respectively (P < 0.001). Proportion of hospital events submitted by trainees increased from 2.3% pre intervention to 4.1%, 4.9%, and 3.6% at post intervention, short-term, and long-term follow-up, respectively (P < 0.001). Trainee monthly submissions (P = 0.015) and proportion of hospital events (P < 0.001) declined from short- to long-term follow-up. Low- and intermediate-level harm events significantly increased post intervention (P < 0.001) while high-level events did not (P = 0.15-1.0). Our comprehensive intervention increased trainee event submissions at long-term follow-up.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Radiology social media research has focused on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, with minimal attention to Instagram, which may be a natural platform for engagement. We evaluated features of public radiology-related Instagram accounts. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Instagram accounts were searched using the term "radiology." Two independent raters used a coding system developed through initial content review to categorize account user types and post aims over the study month (October 2019). Multivariate linear regressions were performed. RESULTS:49 Instagram accounts and their 459 posts were retrieved. Users had median 117 total posts (interquartile range 43-203), 9 posts during the study month (1-16), 3079 followers (695-19,600), and 106 followed users (50-351). Most users were radiologists (41%, most commonly academic), radiology practices (12%, most commonly academic) and 10% radiology professional societies. The 459 posts had median 178 likes (interquartile range 51-353) and 2 comments (0-5); single videos had median 4693 views (2183-6080). 75% of posts were radiology images or videos (of these, 29% MRI, 28% CT). 65% of posts were clinical imaging cases (most commonly neuroradiology). Seven posts violated HIPAA regulations, all originating outside the U.S. When controlling for number of account followers, posts by radiology society (β = -130.6, p = 0.017) and practice accounts (β = -90.6, p = 0.049) had fewer post likes. An artwork post was the only significant predictor of greater post likes (β = +866.2, p < 0.001) and comments (β = +14.3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Instagram is commonly used by academic radiologists to present clinical imaging cases. Radiologists should consider opportunities for greater application of this unique image-based social media platform.

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.