Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE. Industry relationships drive technologic innovation in interventional radiology and offer opportunities for professional growth. Women are underrepresented in interventional radiology despite the growing recognition of the importance of diversity. This study characterized gender disparities in financial relationships between industry and academic interventional radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, U.S. academic interventional radiology physicians and their academic ranks were identified by searching websites of practices with accredited interventional radiology fellowship programs. Publicly available databases were queried to collect each physician's gender, years since medical school graduation, h-index, academic rank, and industry payments in 2018. Wilcoxon and chi-square tests compared payments between genders. A general linear model assessed the impact of academic rank, years since graduation, gender, and h-index on payments. RESULTS. Of 842 academic interventional radiology physicians, 108 (13%) were women. A total $14,206,599.41 was received by 686 doctors (81%); only $147,975.28 (1%) was received by women. A lower percentage of women (74%) than men (83%) received payments (p = 0.04); median total payments were lower for women ($535) than men ($792) (p = 0.01). Academic rank, h-index, years since graduation, and male gender were independent predictors of higher payments. Industry payments supporting technologic advancement were made exclusively to men. CONCLUSION. Female interventional radiology physicians received fewer and lower industry payments, earning 1% of total payments despite constituting 13% of physicians. Gender independently predicted industry payments, regardless of h-index, academic rank, or years since graduation. Gender disparity in interventional radiology physician-industry relationships warrants further investigation and correction.

OBJECTIVE:Women are highly underrepresented among leadership positions within radiology research, disproportionate to their underrepresentation in radiology overall. We sought to identify the causes and solutions of such disparity at the personal, organizational, and institutional levels among female radiology researchers who are leaders in the field. SUBJECTS AND METHODS/METHODS:We used purposive sampling to identify nationally recognized female leaders in radiology research. We developed a semistructured interview guide and conducted in-depth one-on-one telephone interviews with participants (n = 16) that ranged from 36 to 65 min. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed by two researchers trained in qualitative methods using Saldana's first- and second-cycle coding method. Themes were identified using a grounded theory approach to identify meaningful patterns that addressed the research question. RESULTS:Participants identified barriers to their professional development and success, including personal and professional obstacles often associated with work-life balance and the nonlinear nature of women's careers due to caregiving responsibilities. Participants also identified facilitators of success that operated at the individual, organizational, and institutional level, such as purposeful networking, having an advocate, and participating in leadership events. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study represents the first effort to qualitatively capture the facilitators of success for nationally recognized female radiology researchers. Findings suggest that synergistic efforts can be undertaken by early-career female radiologists and their colleagues, national radiology organizations, and academic institutions to systematically enable the inclusion and participation of women. The field of radiology should consider how to work dynamically at multiple levels to implement the identified potential changes.

Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2-5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years ± 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%-44% and 27%-48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System was low and varied widely across centers. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Milot in this issue.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:While subspecialty radiologists' practice patterns have received recent attention, little is known about the practice patterns of general radiologists. We aim to characterize this group (which represents most US radiologists). MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:US radiologists' individual work efforts were assessed using the 2017 Medicare Provider and Other Supplier Public Use File and a previously validated wRVU-weighted claims-based classification system. Using prior criteria, radiologists without >50% work efforts in a single subspecialty were deemed generalists. For this study, a >25% subspecialty work effort threshold was deemed a subspecialty "focus area," and generalists with ≥2 subspecialty focus areas were deemed "multispecialists." Practice characteristics were summarized using various parameters. RESULTS:Among 12,438 radiologists meeting existing claims-based criteria to be deemed generalists, 85.0% had ≥2 subspecialty focus areas of >25% work effort (i.e., multispecialists), 14.6% had one focus area, and 0.4% had no focus area. The fraction of generalists meeting multispecialist criteria was similar across radiologists' years in practice (range 84.7% to 85.4%), academic vs. nonacademic status (84.9% to 86.6%), and practice size (83.3% to 87.0%). Although general radiologist multispecialization varied geographically, a majority were multispecialists in all states (range 57.6% in VT to 93.9% in WY) and percentages were not associated with state-level population density (r = 0.013; p = 0.926). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The large majority of US general radiologists practice as multispecialists, and nearly all have at least one subspecialty focus area. The predominance of general radiologists' multispecialty focus across various practice types and locations supports their role in facilitating patient access to a range of radiologist subspecialties.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:There is a lack of comprehensive data regarding the factors that influence the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to detect and localize clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). OBJECTIVE:To systematically review the current literature assessing the factors influencing the variability of mpMRI performance in csPCa diagnosis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION/METHODS:A computerized bibliographic search of Medline/PubMed database was performed for all studies assessing magnetic field strength, use of an endorectal coil, assessment system used by radiologists and inter-reader variability, experience of radiologists and urologists, use of a contrast agent, and use of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tools in relation to mpMRI diagnostic accuracy. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS/RESULTS:A total of 77 articles were included. Both radiologists' reading experience and urologists'/radiologists' biopsy experience were the main factors that influenced diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, it is mandatory to indicate the experience of the interpreting radiologists and biopsy-performing urologists to support the reliability of the findings. The most recent Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines are recommended for use as the main assessment system for csPCa, given the simplified and standardized approach as well as its particular added value for less experienced radiologists. Biparametric MRI had similar accuracy to mpMRI; however, biparametric MRI performed better with experienced readers. The limited data available suggest that the combination of CAD and radiologist readings may influence diagnostic accuracy positively. CONCLUSIONS:Multiple factors affect the accuracy of mpMRI and MRI-targeted biopsy to detect and localize csPCa. The high heterogeneity across the studies underlines the need to define the experience of radiologists and urologists, implement quality control, and adhere to the most recent PI-RADS assessment guidelines. Further research is needed to clarify which factors impact the accuracy of the MRI pathway and how. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:We systematically reported the factors influencing the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). These factors are significantly related to each other, with the experience of the radiologists being the dominating factor. In order to deliver the benefits of mpMRI to diagnose csPCa, it is necessary to develop expertise for both radiologists and urologists, implement quality control, and adhere to the most recent Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment guidelines.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this article is to assess radiologist concordance in characterizing thyroid nodules using the American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS), focusing on the effect of radiologist experience on reader concordance. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three experienced and three less experienced radiologists assessed 150 thyroid nodules using the TI-RADS lexicon. Percent concordance was determined for various endpoints. RESULTS. Interreader concordance for the five TI-RADS categories was 87.2% for shape, 81.2% for composition, 76.1% for echogenicity, 72.9% for margins, and 69.8% for echogenic foci. Concordance for individual features was 96.3% for rim calcifications, 90.8% for macrocalcifications, 90.1% for spongiform, 83.5% for comet tail artifact, and 77.7% for punctate echogenic foci. Concordance for the TI-RADS level and recommendation for fine-needle aspiration (FNA) were 50.4% and 78.9%, respectively. Concordance was significantly (p < 0.05) higher for less experienced readers in identifying margins (84.3% vs 67.4%), echogenic foci (76.9% vs 69.3%), comet tail artifact (89.6% vs 79.2%), and punctate echogenic foci (85.3% vs 75.5%), and lower for peripheral rim calcifications (95.0% vs 97.8 %), but was not different (p > 0.05) for the remaining categories and features. CONCLUSION. A range of TI-RADS categories, features, and recommendations for FNA had generally moderate interreader agreement among six radiologists. Our results show that concordance for numerous characteristics was significantly higher for the less experienced versus the more experienced readers. These results suggest that less experienced readers relied more on the explicit TI-RADS criteria, whereas the experienced radiologists partially relied on their accumulated experience when forming impressions. However, the overall TI-RADS level and recommendation for FNA were unaffected, supporting the robustness of the TI-RADS lexicon and its continued use in practice.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To assess the prevalence and associated factors of burnout among U.S. academic radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:An online survey was sent to the radiologists who were full members of the Association of University Radiologists in December 2018. Burnout was measured using the abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey. Survey respondents were also requested to complete questions on demographics, potential professional stressors, sense of calling, and career satisfaction. Associations between survey participants' characteristics and burnout were tested using logistic regression model. RESULTS:The survey response rate was 27% (228/831). Twenty-nine percent met all three criteria for high burnout, including high emotional exhaustion, high depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment. Seventy-nine percent had one or more symptoms of burnout. Numerous factors including work overload, inability to balance personal and professional life, lack of autonomy, lack of appreciation from patients and other medical staff were significantly associated (p < 0.05) with high burnout. Older age (OR, 0.95; 95%CI 0.92-0.98; p < 0.05), higher number of years of experience practicing as radiologists (OR, 0.95; 95%CI 0.92-0.98; p < 0.05), and holding academic rank of professor (OR, 0.25; 95%CI 0.11-0.56; p < 0.05) were factors associated with lower odds of experiencing burnout. Radiologists with high burnout were more likely to be dissatisfied with their career (OR, 2.28; 95%CI 1.70-3.07; p < 0.0001) and less likely to identify medicine as a calling. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Multiple factors contribute to high burnout in academic radiologists. Familiarity with these factors may help academic radiology departments to develop strategies to promote health and wellness of their faculty.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of English proficiency on abdominal MRI imaging quality. METHODS:Three equal-sized cohorts of patients undergoing 3T abdominal MRI were identified based on English proficiency as documented in the EMR: Primary language of English; English as a second language (ESL)/no translator needed; or ESL, translator needed (42 patients per cohort for total study size of 126 patients). Three radiologists independently used a 1-5 Likert scale to assess respiratory motion and image quality on turbo spin-echo T2WI and post-contrast T1WI. Groups were compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS:For T2WI respiratory motion, all three readers scored the Translator group significantly worse than the English and ESL/no-Translator groups (mean scores across readers of 2.98 vs. 3.58 and 3.51; p values < 0.001-0.008). For T2WI overall image quality, all three readers also scored the Translator group significantly worse than the English and ESL/no-Translator groups (2.77 vs. 3.28 and 3.31; p values 0.002-0.005). For T1WI respiratory motion, mean scores were not significantly different between groups (English: 4.14, ESL/no-Translator: 4.02, Translator: 3.94; p values 0.398-0.597). For T1WI overall image quality, mean scores also were not significantly different (4.09, 3.99, and 3.95, respectively; p values 0.369-0.831). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Abdominal MR examinations show significantly worse T2WI respiratory motion and overall image quality when requiring a translator, even compared with non-translator exams in non-English primary language patients. Strategies are warranted to improve coordination among MR technologists, translators, and non-English speaking patients undergoing abdominal MR, to ensure robust image quality in this vulnerable patient population.