Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to investigate county-level geographic patterns of mammographic screening uptake throughout the United States and to determine the impact of rural versus urban settings on breast cancer screening uptake. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:This descriptive study used County Health Rankings (CHR) data to identify the percentage of Medicare enrollees 67-69 years old per county who had at least one mammogram in 2013 or 2012 (uptake). Uptake was matched with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Atlas of Rural and Small Town America categorizations along a rural-urban continuum scale from 1 to 9 based on county population size (large urban, population ≥ 20,000 people; small urban, < 20,000 people) and proximity to a metropolitan area. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS:In all, 2,243,294 Medicare beneficiaries were eligible for mammograms. National mean uptake per county was 60.5% (range, 26.0-86.0%). Uptake was significantly higher in metropolitan and large urban counties in 25 states and lower in only one. County-level mammographic uptake was moderately positively correlated with percentage of residents with some college education (r = 0.40, p < 0.001) and moderately negatively correlated with age-adjusted mortality (r = -0.41, p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that percentage of white and black residents and age-adjusted mortality rate were the strongest significant independent predictors of uptake. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Uptake of mammographic screening services in a Medicare population varies widely at the county level and is generally lowest in rural counties and urban counties with fewer than 20,000 people.

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.

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/OBJECTIVE:To conduct a meta-analysis of studies investigating discrepancy rates and clinical impact of imaging secondary interpretations and to identify factors influencing these rates. METHODS:EMBASE and PubMed databases were searched for original research investigations reporting discrepancy rates for secondary interpretations performed by radiologists for imaging examinations initially interpreted at other institutions. Two reviewers extracted study information and assessed study quality. Meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS:Twenty-nine studies representing a total of 12,676 imaging secondary interpretations met inclusion criteria; 19 of these studies provided data specifically for oncologic imaging examinations. Primary risks of bias included availability of initial interpretations, other clinical information, and reference standard before the secondary interpretation. The overall discrepancy rate of secondary interpretations compared with primary interpretations was 32.2%, including a 20.4% discrepancy rate for major findings. Secondary interpretations were management changing in 18.6% of cases. Among discrepant interpretations with an available reference standard, the secondary interpretation accuracy rate was 90.5%. The overall discrepancy rates by examination types were 28.3% for CT, 31.2% for MRI, 32.7% for oncologic imaging, 43.8% for body imaging, 39.9% for breast imaging, 34.0% for musculoskeletal imaging, 23.8% for neuroradiologic imaging, 35.5% for pediatric imaging, and 19.7% for trauma imaging. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Most widely studied in the context of oncology, imaging secondary interpretations commonly result in discrepant interpretations that are management changing and more accurate than initial interpretations. Policymakers should consider these findings as they consider the value of, and payment for, secondary imaging interpretations.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate transgender patient care, gender inclusivity, and transgender health-related policies at breast imaging facilities across the United States. METHODS:A survey on breast imaging facilities' policies and practices regarding transgender care was distributed to the membership of the Society of Breast Imaging, consisting of approximately 2,500 breast radiologists across the United States. The survey was conducted by e-mail in January 2018. RESULTS:There were 144 survey respondents. Responses showed that 78.5% of facilities have gender-neutral patient bathrooms, 9.0% have a separate waiting area for transgender patients, and 76.4% do not have dominant pink hues in their facilities, although 54.2% have displays with female gender content. Also, 58.0% of intake forms do not ask patients to provide their gender identity, although 25.9% automatically populate with female phrases. Within the electronic health record, 32.9% lack a distinct place to record patients' preferred names and 54.9% lack a distinct place to record patients' gender pronouns. The majority (73.4%) do not have explicit policies related to the care of transgender patients. Only 14.7% of facilities offer lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender training. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our national survey demonstrates that many breast imaging facilities do not have structures in place to consistently use patients' preferred names and pronouns, nor provide inclusive environments for transgender patients. All breast imaging facilities should recognize the ways in which their practices may intensify discrimination, exclusivity, and stigma for transgender patients and should seek to improve their transgender health competencies and foster more inclusive environments.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:As federal legislation increasingly influences health care delivery, the impact of election funding has grown. We aimed to characterize US radiologist federal political contributions over recent years. METHODS:After obtaining 2003 to 2016 finance data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), we extracted contribution data for all self-identified radiologists. Contributions were classified by recipient group and FEC-designated political party and then analyzed temporally and geographically, in aggregate, and by individual radiologist. RESULTS:Between 2003 and 2016, the FEC reported 35,408,584 political contributions. Of these, 36,474 (totaling $16,255,099) were from 7,515 unique self-identified radiologists. Total annual radiologist contributions ranged from $480,565 in 2005 to $1,867,120 in 2012. On average, 1,697 radiologists made political contributions each year (range 903 in 2005 to 2,496 in 2016). On average, contributing radiologists gave $2,163 ± $4,053 (range $10-$121,836) over this time, but amounts varied considerably by state (range $865 in Utah to $4,325 in Arkansas). Of all radiologist dollars, 76.3% were nonpartisan, with only 14.8% to Republicans, 8.5% to Democrats, and 0.4% to others. Most radiologist dollars went to political action committees (PACs) rather than candidates (74.6% versus 25.4%). Those PAC dollars were overwhelmingly (92.5%) directed to the Radiology Political Action Committee (RADPAC), which saw self-identified radiologist contributions grow from $351,251 in 2003 to $1,113,966 in 2016. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Radiologist federal political contributions have increased over 3-fold in recent years. That growth overwhelmingly represents contributions to RADPAC. Despite national political polarization, the overwhelming majority of radiologist political contributions are specialty-focused and nonpartisan.

Multiparametric MR imaging provides detailed anatomic assessment of the prostate as well as information that allows the detection and characterization of prostate cancer. To obtain high-quality MR imaging of the prostate, radiologists must understand sequence optimization to overcome commonly encountered technical challenges. This review discusses the techniques that are used in state-of-the-art MR imaging of the prostate, including imaging protocols, hardware considerations, and important aspects of patient preparation, with an emphasis on the recommendations provided in the prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2 guidelines.