Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The objective of our study was to study patterns of services rendered by U.S. physicians who self-identify as nuclear medicine (NM) specialists. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Recent Medicare physician claims and demographic files were obtained and linked. NM specialists were defined as physicians self-identifying NM as their primary specialty on claims or as any of their specialties during enrollment. Using other self-identified specialties, we classified physicians as nuclear radiologists, nuclear cardiologists, exclusively NM physicians, or Others. Our primary outcome measure was the percentage of NM effort (in work relative value units [WRVUs]) per physician per specialty group. Secondary outcome measures included physician sociodemographic parameters and most common uniquely rendered services. RESULTS:Nationally, 1583 physicians self-identified as NM specialists during the calendar years 2012 through 2015. The distribution of WRVUs attributed to NM varied widely by specialty group; most nuclear radiologists and nuclear cardiologists devoted 10% or less of their effort to NM services whereas most NM physicians devoted 90% or more of their effort to NM services. NM specialists were most commonly nuclear radiologists (52.2%) and men (80.3%) and practiced in urban (98.4%) and nonacademic settings (62.9%). NM physicians interpreted more general NM studies, nuclear radiologists interpreted more cross-sectional imaging studies, and nuclear cardiologists interpreted mostly nuclear cardiology studies, with a majority of their overall work attributed to clinical evaluation and management (E/M). E/M services accounted for less than 2% of WRVUs for both nuclear radiologists and NM physicians. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The work patterns of U.S. NM specialists is highly variable. Most NM physicians practice 90% or more NM, whereas most nuclear radiologists and nuclear cardiologists practice 10% or less NM. Commonly performed services vary considerably by specialty group.

Radiologists are facing increasing workplace pressures that can lead to decreased job satisfaction and burnout. The increasing complexity and volumes of cases and increasing numbers of noninterpretive tasks, compounded by decreasing reimbursements and visibility in this digital age, have created a critical need to develop innovations that optimize workflow, increase radiologist engagement, and enhance patient care. During their workday, radiologists often must navigate through multiple software programs, including picture archiving and communication systems, electronic health records, and dictation software. Furthermore, additional noninterpretive duties can interrupt image review. Fragmented data and frequent task switching can create frustration and potentially affect patient care. Despite the current successful technological advancements across industries, radiology software systems often remain nonintegrated and not leveraged to their full potential. Each step of the imaging process can be enhanced with use of information technology (IT). Successful implementation of IT innovations requires a collaborative team of radiologists, IT professionals, and software programmers to develop customized solutions. This article includes a discussion of how IT tools are used to improve many steps of the imaging process, including examination protocoling, image interpretation, reporting, communication, and radiologist feedback. ^©RSNA, 2018.

The cost of providing healthcare in the United States continues to rise. The Affordable Care Act created systems to test value-based alternative payments models. Traditionally, procedure-based specialists such as neurointerventionalists have largely functioned in, and are thus familiar with, the traditional Fee for Service system. Administrative charge data would suggest that neurointerventional surgery is an expensive specialty. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act consolidated pre-existing federal performance programs in the Merit-based Incentive Payments System (MIPS), including a performance category called 'cost'. Understanding cost as a dimension that contributes to the value of care delivered is critical for succeeding in MIPS and offers a meaningful route for favorably bending the cost curve.

BACKGROUND:The number of prostate biopsy cores that need to be taken from each magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) region of interest (ROI) to optimize sampling while minimizing overdetection has not yet been clearly elucidated. OBJECTIVE:To characterize the incremental value of additional MRI-ultrasound (US) fusion targeted biopsy cores in defining the optimal number when planning biopsy and to predict men who might benefit from more than two targeted cores. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of MRI-US fusion targeted biopsies between 2015 and 2017. INTERVENTION/METHODS:MRI-US fusion targeted biopsy in which four biopsy cores were directed to each MRI-targeted ROI. OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS/UNASSIGNED:The MRI-targeted cores representing the first highest Gleason core (FHGC) and first clinically significant cancer core (FCSC; GS≥3+4) were evaluated. We analyzed the frequency of FHGC and FCSC among cores 1-4 and created a logistic regression model to predict FHGC >2. The number of unnecessary cores avoided and the number of malignancies missed for each Gleason grade were calculated via clinical utility analysis. The level of agreement between biopsy and prostatectomy Gleason scores was evaluated using Cohen's κ. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:A total of 479 patients underwent fusion targeted biopsy with four individual cores, with 615 ROIs biopsied. Among those, FHGC was core 1 in 477 (76.8%), core 2 in 69 (11.6%), core 3 in 48 (7.6%), and core 4 in 24 men (4.0%) with any cancer. Among men with clinically significant cancer, FCSC was core 1 in 191 (77.8%), core 2 in 26 (11.1%), core 3 in 17 (6.2%), and core 4 in 11 samples (4.9%). In comparison to men with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 5, patients were significantly less likely to have FHGS >2 if they had PI-RADS 4 (odds ratio [OR] 0.287; p=0.006), PI-RADS 3 (OR 0.284; p=0.006), or PI-RADS 2 (OR 0.343; p=0.015). Study limitations include a single-institution experience and the retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS:Cores 1-2 represented FHGC 88.4% and FCSC 88.9% of the time. A PI-RADS score of 5 independently predicted FHGC >2. Although the majority of cancers in our study were appropriately characterized in the first two biopsy cores, there remains a proportion of men who would benefit from additional cores. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:In men who undergo magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy, the first two biopsy cores diagnose the majority of clinically significant cancers. However, there remains a proportion of men who would benefit from additional cores.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess changing Medicare volumes of, and coverage for, secondary interpretations of diagnostic imaging examinations stratified by modality and body region service families. METHODS:Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files for 2003 to 2016 were obtained. Aggregate Part B fee-for-service claims frequency and payment data were isolated for noninvasive diagnostic imaging and stratified by service family. Using published Medicare payment rules, secondary interpretations were identified as studies billed using both modifiers 26 and 77. Billed and denied services volumes were calculated and compared across modality and body region service families. RESULTS:Seven service families showed a compound annual growth rate from 2003 to 2016 of >20% (an additional 12 service families, >10% growth). For select high-volume service families (chest radiography and fluoroscopy [R&F], brain MRI, and abdominal and pelvic CT), relative growth in billed secondary interpretation services exceeded that for primary interpretations. In 2016, body region and modality service families with the most billed secondary interpretations were chest R&F (674,124), abdominal and pelvic R&F (65,566), brain CT (45,642), extremity R&F (34,560), abdominal and pelvic CT (14,269), and chest CT (10,914). All service families had secondary interpretation denial rates <25% in 2016 (15 service families, <10%). CONCLUSIONS:Among Medicare beneficiaries, the frequency of billed secondary interpretation services for diagnostic imaging services increased from 2003 to 2016 across a broad range of modalities and body regions, often dramatically. Payment denial rates were consistently low across service families. As CMS continues to seek input on appropriate coverage for these services, these findings suggest increasing clinical demand for and payer acceptance of these value-added radiologist services.

Purpose To explore subspecialty workforce considerations surrounding invasive procedures performed by radiologists. Materials and Methods The 2015 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was used to identify all invasive procedures (Current Procedural Terminology code range, 10000-69999) billed by radiologists for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Radiologists were categorized by subspecialty according to the majority of their billable work-relative value units (wRVUs). Those without a single subspecialty majority work effort were deemed generalists. Procedures were categorized into three tiers of complexity (high, ≥4.0 wRVUs; mid, 1.6-3.9 wRVUs; low, ≤1.5 wRVUs). Total and tiered generalist versus subspecialist workforce composition was assessed. Results Just 25 unique services comprised more than 75% of invasive procedures performed by radiologists. Of radiologists who performed procedures, 57.5% were generalists, 15.8% were interventionalists, and 26.8% were other subspecialists. Of the radiologists who performed low-, mid-, and high-complexity procedures, generalists accounted for 46.3%, 30.9%, and 23.1%, respectively; interventionalists accounted for 35.4%, 30.9%, and 75.2%, respectively; and other subspecialists accounted for 18.3%, 14.6%, and 1.7%, respectively. Generalists were the dominant providers of six of the top 10 low-complexity and seven of the top 10 midcomplexity procedures. Interventionalists were the dominant providers of all top 10 high-complexity procedures. Nationally, over twice as many U.S. counties had local access to generalists (869 counties) for invasive procedures versus interventionalists (347 counties) or other subspecialists (380 counties). Conclusion Among radiologists, generalists perform far more procedures in more geographic locations and are more likely to serve patients with less complex service needs than are interventionalists or other subspecialists. Practices and professional societies must remain vigilant to ensure that the subspecialty evolution in radiology does not exacerbate patient access disparities.

For many pathologies, early structural tissue changes occur at the cellular level, on the scale of micrometers or tens of micrometers. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a powerful non-invasive imaging tool used for medical diagnosis, but its clinical hardware is incapable of reaching the cellular length scale directly. In spite of this limitation, microscopic tissue changes in pathology can potentially be captured indirectly, from macroscopic imaging characteristics, by studying water diffusion. Here we focus on water diffusion and NMR relaxation in the human prostate, a highly heterogeneous organ at the cellular level. We present a physical picture of water diffusion and NMR relaxation in the prostate tissue, that is comprised of a densely-packed cellular compartment (composed of stroma and epithelium), and a luminal compartment with almost unrestricted water diffusion. Transverse NMR relaxation is used to identify fast and slow T

PURPOSE: To characterize recent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technical development and innovation based on data regarding MRI-related patents awarded in 2016. METHODS: The US Patent and Trademark Office website was searched for patents awarded in 2016 and an abstract containing "magnetic resonance." Patent characteristics were summarized. An MRI physicist classified patents' themes. RESULTS: A total of 423 MRI-related patents were awarded in 2016. Among these, 29% had 1 inventor, 24% had 2 inventors, and 47% had >/=2 inventors. Mean interval between patents being filed and awarded was 1389 +/- 559 days (range: 167-4029). Most common countries of patents' first assignee were USA (40%), Germany (24%), Netherlands (10%), and Japan (10%). In all, 3% included assignees with different countries (most common collaborators USA and Germany). Patents' first assignee had an industry affiliation in 76% vs an academic affiliation in 21% (4% indeterminate); and 3% had industry-academia collaboration. Patents' most common themes were coils (n = 77), sequence design (n = 65), and noncoil scanner hardware (n = 41). These top themes were similar for USA, international, and industry-based patents; however, for academic-based patents, the most common themes were sequence design, reconstruction, and exogenous agents. Less common themes included image analysis, postprocessing, spectroscopy, relaxometry, diffusion, motion correction, radiation therapy, implants, wireless devices, and positron emission tomography-MRI. CONCLUSION: Most MRI-related patents were by non-US inventors. A large majority had industry affiliation; minimal industry-academic collaboration was observed. Patents from industry and academic inventors had distinct top focuses: hardware and software, respectively. Awareness of the most recent years' MRI patents may provide insights into forthcoming clinical translations and help guide ongoing research and entrepreneurism.