Faculty Bibliography

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.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:While MRI-Ultrasound Fusion-targeted biopsy (MRF-TB) allows for improved detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), concerning numbers of clinically significant disease are still missed. We hypothesize that a number of these are due to the learning curve associated with MRF-TB. We report results of repeat MRF-TB in men with continued suspicion for cancer and the institutional learning curve in detection of csPCa over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Analysis of 1813 prostate biopsies in a prospectively acquired cohort of men presenting for prostate biopsy over a 4-year period. All men were offered pre-biopsy MRI and assigned a maximum Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS) score. Biopsy outcomes of men with suspicious region of interest (ROI) were compared. The relationship between time and csPCa detection was analyzed. RESULTS:csPCa detection rate increased 26% over time in men with PI-RADS 4 and 5 (4/5) ROI. On repeat MRF-TB in men with continued suspicion for cancer, 53% of men with PI-RADS 4/5 ROI demonstrated clinically significant discordance from initial MRF-TB, compared to only 23% of men with PI-RADS 1/2 ROI. Significantly less csPCa were missed or under-graded in the most recent biopsies as compared to the earliest biopsies. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:High upgrade rates on repeat MRF-TB and increasing cancer detection rate over time demonstrate the significant learning curve associated with MRF-TB. Men with low risk or negative biopsies with persistent concerning ROI should be promptly re-biopsied. Improved targeting accuracy with operator experience can help decrease the number of missed csPCa.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess radiologists' performance on Medicare quality measures and identify physician characteristics potentially influencing such scores. METHODS:Medicare quality scores reported by US radiologists in 2015 were obtained from CMS. Associations were explored with publicly available physician characteristic data. RESULTS:Overall, 15,045 radiologists reported 40,427 Medicare quality scores encompassing 25 claims measures, 18 registry measures, and 2 qualified clinical data registry (QCDR) measures. Claims measures included reporting fluoroscopic times (n = 10,152; mean score, 80.3 ± 27.6), carotid ultrasound stenosis (n = 8,940; mean score, 86.8 ± 20.6), inappropriate mammography use of "probably benign" (n = 8,083; mean score, 0.4 ± 3.3), mammography reminders (n = 7,229; mean score, 86.6 ± 29.0), bone scintigraphy correlation (n = 2,712; mean score, 76.0 ± 27.0), and line-related infection prevention (n = 2,226; mean score, 83.3 ± 27.4). Registry measures were reported by ≤17 radiologists. The two QCDR measures were dose index registry participation (n = 246; mean score, 99.5 ± 1.4) and mammography recall rate (n = 77; mean score, 9.0 ± 5.6). Higher scores were observed for radiologists in larger practices (strongest independent predictor), in subspecialized practices, in academic practices, in the South and West, and with fewer years in practice. The fluoroscopic exposure times measure had the best performance scores by musculoskeletal and interventional radiologists, carotid Doppler measure by abdominal radiologists, mammography measures by breast radiologists, bone scintigraphy measure by musculoskeletal and nuclear medicine radiologists, and line infection measure by interventionalists. The dose registry participation QCDR measure had near perfect performance across generalists and subspecialists. CONCLUSIONS:Current Medicare performance metrics favor radiologists in larger practices and subspecialized radiologists, possibly reflecting support infrastructures and the narrow focus of most metrics, respectively. These findings may assist targeted data-driven reporting by radiologists and guide efforts to refine existing and develop new metrics.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess geographic variation in gender disparities in the US radiologist workforce. METHODS:Gender, location, and practice affiliation of all radiologists and gender of all nonradiologists were identified for all providers listed in the Medicare Physician Compare database. Variation in female representation among radiologists was summarized at state, county, and individual practice levels, and associations with a variety of county-level population characteristics were explored. RESULTS:Nationally, 23.1% (7,501 of 32,429) of all radiologists were women versus 46.6% (481,831 of 1,034,909) of Medicare-participating nonradiologists. At the state level, female representation among radiologists was overall highest in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions (Washington DC, 39.3%; Massachusetts, 34.3%; Maryland, 31.5%) and lowest in the West and Midwest (Wyoming, 9.0%; Montana, 10.7%; Idaho, 11.7%). At the county level, female representation varied from 0.0% to 100.0%, with weak positive correlations with county-level population (r = +0.39), median household income (r = +0.25), college education (r = +0.23), English nonproficiency (r = +0.21), mammography screening rates (r = +0.12), Democratic voting in the 2016 presidential election (r = +0.28), and weak negative correlation with county-level rural population percentage (r = -0.32). Among practices with ≥10 members, female representation varied greatly (0.0% to 100.0%). Female representation was higher among academic (32.3%) than nonacademic (20.6%) radiologists, and in states with higher female-to-male relative earnings (r = +0.556). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Compared with nonradiologists, women are underrepresented in the national radiologist workforce. This underrepresentation is highly variable at state, county, and practice levels and is partially explained by a variety of demographic, socioeconomic, and political factors. These insights could help inform and drive initiatives to reduce gender disparities and more actively engage women in the specialty.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To explore variation in downstream relative costs associated with ovarian cysts incidentally detected on ultrasound. METHODS:For 200 consecutive incidental ovarian cysts on ultrasound, ultrasound reports were classified in terms of presence of a radiologist recommendation for additional imaging. All downstream events (imaging, office visits, and surgery) associated with the cysts were identified from the electronic health record. Medical costs associated with these downstream events were estimated using national Medicare rates. Average cost per cyst was stratified by various factors; cost ratios were computed among subgroups. RESULTS:Average costs per cyst were 1.9 times greater in postmenopausal than premenopausal women. Relative to when follow-up imaging was neither recommended nor obtained, costs were 1.1 times greater when follow-up imaging was recommended but not obtained, 5.1 times greater when follow-up imaging was both recommended and obtained, and 8.1 times greater when follow-up imaging was obtained despite not being recommended. Costs were 2.5 times greater when the radiologist underrecommended follow-up compared with Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) guidelines for management of ovarian cysts, 3.0 times greater when the ordering physician overmanaged compared with the radiologist's recommendation, as well as 1.7 times and 3.8 times greater when the ordering physician undermanaged and overmanaged compared with SRU guidelines, respectively. Four ovarian neoplasms, although no ovarian malignancy, were diagnosed in the cohort. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Follow-up costs for incidental ovarian cysts are highly variable based on a range of factors. Radiologist recommendations may contribute to lower costs among patients receiving follow-up imaging. Such recommendations should reflect best practices and support the follow-up that will be of likely greatest value for patient care.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has utility in detecting post-radiotherapy local recurrence. We conducted a multireader study to evaluate the diagnostic performance of mpMRI for local recurrence after low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy. METHODS:A total of 19 patients with biochemical recurrence after LDR brachytherapy underwent 3T endorectal coil mpMRI with T2-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with pathologic confirmation. Prospective reads by an experienced prostate radiologist were compared with reads from 4 radiologists of varying experience. Readers identified suspicious lesions and rated each MRI detection parameter. MRI-detected lesions were considered true-positive with ipsilateral pathologic confirmation. Inferences for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), kappa, and index of specific agreement were made with the use of bootstrap resampling. RESULTS:Pathologically confirmed recurrence was found in 15 of 19 patients. True positive recurrences identified by mpMRI were frequently located in the transition zone (46.7%) and seminal vesicles (30%). On patient-based analysis, average sensitivity of mpMRI was 88% (standard error [SE], 3.5%). For highly suspicious lesions, specificity of mpMRI was 75% (SE, 16.5%). On lesion-based analysis, the average PPV was 62% (SE, 6.7%) for all lesions and 78.7% (SE, 10.3%) for highly suspicious lesions. The average PPV for lesions invading the seminal vesicles was 88.8% (n=13). The average PPV was 66.6% (SE, 5.8%) for lesions identified with T2-weighted imaging, 64.9% (SE, 7.3%) for DCE, and 70% (SE, 7.3%) for DWI. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This series provides evidence that mpMRI after LDR brachytherapy is feasible with a high patient-based cancer detection rate. Radiologists of varying experience demonstrated moderate agreement in detecting recurrence.

Background: Traditional pathology reports of prostate biopsy mainly focus on presence of carcinoma but ignore other pathologic findings such as inflammation or hyperplasia. In the era of MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy (MRF-TB), where specific MRI regions of interest (ROI) are targeted for biopsy, these benign findings should be reported as they may guide decisions on when to repeat imaging or prostate biopsy. In this study, we reviewed MRF-TB prostate biopsies reported as negative for carcinoma to identify pathologic correlates to visible ROI on prostate MRI. Design: From 2012 to2016, 1595 men underwent a total of 1813 prebiopsy prostate MRI, followed by MRF-TB at our institution. We rereviewed the prostate biopsy cores for all patients with PI-RADS 4 or 5 (PI-RADS 4/5) ROI but had no cancer detected on MRF-TB. Pathologic findings were separated into two groups: significant pathologic findings (SPF, such as inflammation, hyperplasia, ASAP/HGPIN) and no significant pathologic findings (NSPF) with or without cancer in same/adjacent site on systematic biopsy (SB). Patients with repeat MRI and follow-up MRF-TB evaluation. Results: 497 men had PI-RADS 4/5 lesions out of 1595 initial biopsies. Of these 497 men, 101 (20%) had MRF-TB negative for carcinoma. Upon review, 54 had SPF and 47 had NSPF on MRF-TB. Of 54 men with SPF on initial MRF-TB, 31 had repeat MRI, 23 of 31 men downgraded in which 16 had repeat MRF-TB with 1 had cancer detect. The other 8 of 31 men had persistent PI-RADS 4/5 lesions, 3 were detected cancer on repeat MRF-TB. Of 47 men with NSPF on initial MRF-TB, 19 had PCa in the same/ adjacent site on SB and were considered as missed on MRF-TB; of the other 28, 13 underwent repeat MRI. 8 of 13 downgraded with 0 had PCa in the repeat MRF-TB and 5 of 13 men with persistent PI-RADS 4/5 lesions, 3 had PCa detect on repeat MRF-TB. Altogether, 22/47 (47%) of the cases with NSPF in the initial MRF-TB were missed cancer. Conclusions: 1/5 of the target biopsy cases on PI-RADS 4/5 ROI had negative cancer detection. Inflammation, nodular hyperplasia and HGPIN can account for some of the cases, and those were downgraded in followup MRI usually had a negative repeat biopsy. Cases with NSPF on MRF-TB for PI-RADS 4/5 lesions are likely (47%) missed PCa, high likelihood of persistent PI-RADS 4/5 ROI on repeat MRI and PCa detection on repeat biopsy. We suggest pathology findings beside cancer should be reported on MRF-TB biopsy as they can guide decisions on repeat imagine and biopsy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of the study is to characterize current practice patterns of abdominal radiologists based on work descriptions within job postings on numerous national radiology specialty websites. METHODS:Job postings for either "abdominal" or "body" radiologists were searched weekly on five society websites (SAR, SCBT-MR, ARRS, ACR, RSNA) over a 1-year period. Postings were reviewed for various characteristics. RESULTS:Nine hundred and sixteen total ads for 341 unique abdominal radiologist positions were reviewed (34.6% academic, 64.2% private practice, 1.2% other). Postings occurred most commonly in March (12.3%) and least commonly in November (4.8%). States with most positions were Florida (27), California (26), and New York (24). Of postings delineating expectations of specific abdominal modalities, 67.4% mentioned MRI, 58.5% ultrasound, 41.1% fluoroscopy, 14.3% PET, and 54.0% interventions. Additional non-abdominal expectations included general radiology (28.7%), breast imaging (21.1%), and general nuclear medicine (9.7%). Additional skills included prostate MRI (7.0%), OBGYN ultrasound (5.0%), and CT colonoscopy (2.6%). 79.2% required an abdominal imaging fellowship (specifically a body MRI fellowship in 4.1%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:By using job postings for abdominal radiologists, we have taken a practical approach to characterizing the current status of this subspecialty, reflecting recent job expectations and requirements. The large majority of positions required a body fellowship, and the positions commonly entailed a variety of skills beyond non-invasive diagnostic abdominal imaging. Of note, expectations of considerable minorities of positions included abdominal interventions, general radiology, and breast imaging. These insights may guide the development of abdominal radiology fellowships and mini-fellowships, as well as assist radiologists entering or returning to the job market.