Faculty Bibliography

Background MRI is a powerful diagnostic tool with a long acquisition time. Recently, deep learning (DL) methods have provided accelerated high-quality image reconstructions from undersampled data, but it is unclear if DL image reconstruction can be reliably translated to everyday clinical practice. Purpose To determine the diagnostic equivalence of prospectively accelerated DL-reconstructed knee MRI compared with conventional accelerated MRI for evaluating internal derangement of the knee in a clinical setting. Materials and Methods A DL reconstruction model was trained with images from 298 clinical 3-T knee examinations. In a prospective analysis, patients clinically referred for knee MRI underwent a conventional accelerated knee MRI protocol at 3 T followed by an accelerated DL protocol between January 2020 and February 2021. The equivalence of the DL reconstruction of the images relative to the conventional images for the detection of an abnormality was assessed in terms of interchangeability. Each examination was reviewed by six musculoskeletal radiologists. Analyses pertaining to the detection of meniscal or ligament tears and bone marrow or cartilage abnormalities were based on four-point ordinal scores for the likelihood of an abnormality. Additionally, the protocols were compared with use of four-point ordinal scores for each aspect of image quality: overall image quality, presence of artifacts, sharpness, and signal-to-noise ratio. Results A total of 170 participants (mean age ± SD, 45 years ± 16; 76 men) were evaluated. The DL-reconstructed images were determined to be of diagnostic equivalence with the conventional images for detection of abnormalities. The overall image quality score, averaged over six readers, was significantly better (P < .001) for the DL than for the conventional images. Conclusion In a clinical setting, deep learning reconstruction enabled a nearly twofold reduction in scan time for a knee MRI and was diagnostically equivalent with the conventional protocol. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Roemer in this issue.

To fulfill ACGME requirements, radiology residency programs are required to provide an educational experience that includes a core didactic curriculum for each subspecialty. Although developing and delivering such a core curriculum may not present a problem for large academic programs, it can present a significant challenge for smaller programs with limited faculty in each subspecialty area. Success of the core curriculum lectures series developed for cardiothoracic radiology by the Society of Thoracic Radiology and for musculoskeletal radiology by the International Skeletal Society in collaboration with the Society for Skeletal Radiology prompted the idea of creating a comprehensive core curriculum lecture series encompassing all subspecialties. This paper aims to describe the multi-society collaborative effort entailed in building a curated, on line resident focused core curriculum lecture series detailing the barriers encountered, effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and impact of the finished project.

To achieve necessary social distancing during the Covid-19 pandemic, working from home was introduced at most if not all academic radiology departments. Although initially thought to be a temporary adaptation, the popularity of working from home among faculty has made it likely that it will remain a component of radiology departments for the long term. This paper will review the potential advantages and disadvantages of working from home for an academic radiology department and suggest strategies to try to preserve the advantages and minimize the disadvantages.

Artificial intelligence and deep learning (DL) offer musculoskeletal radiology exciting possibilities in multiple areas, including image reconstruction and transformation, tissue segmentation, workflow support, and disease detection. Novel DL-based image reconstruction algorithms correcting aliasing artifacts, signal loss, and noise amplification with previously unobtainable effectiveness are prime examples of how DL algorithms deliver promised value propositions in musculoskeletal radiology. The speed of DL-based tissue segmentation promises great efficiency gains that may permit the inclusion of tissue compositional-based information routinely into radiology reports. Similarly, DL algorithms give rise to a myriad of opportunities for workflow improvements, including intelligent and adaptive hanging protocols, speech recognition, report generation, scheduling, precertification, and billing. The value propositions of disease-detecting DL algorithms include reduced error rates and increased productivity. However, more studies using authentic clinical workflow settings are necessary to fully understand the value of DL algorithms for disease detection in clinical practice. Successful workflow integration and management of multiple algorithms are critical for translating the value propositions of DL algorithms into clinical practice but represent a major roadblock for which solutions are critically needed. While there is no consensus about the most sustainable business model, radiology departments will need to carefully weigh the benefits and disadvantages of each commercially available DL algorithm. Although more studies are needed to understand the value and impact of DL algorithms on clinical practice, DL technology will likely play an important role in the future of musculoskeletal imaging.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To determine the impact of COVID-19 workflow changes on patient throughput at the outpatient imaging facilities of a large healthcare system in New York City. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:COVID-19 workflow changes to permit social distancing and patient and staff safety included screening at the time of scheduling, encouraging patients to use our digital platform to complete registration/safety forms prior to appointments, stationing screeners at all entrances, limiting waiting room capacity, implementing a texting system to notify patients of delays, limiting dressing room use by encouraging patients to wear exam-appropriate clothing, and accelerating MRI protocols without reducing image quality. We assessed patients' pre-exam wait times, MR exam times, overall time spent on site, and registration for and use of the digital portal before (February 2020) and after (June 2020) implementation of these measures. RESULTS:Across 17 outpatient imaging centers, workflow changes resulted in a 23.1% reduction (-6.8 minutes) in all patients' pre-exam wait times (p <0.00001). Pre-exam wait times for MRI, CT, ultrasound, x-ray, and mammography decreased 28.4% (-10.3 minutes), 16.5% (-6.7 minutes), 25.3% (-7.7 minutes), 22.8% (-3.7 minutes), and 23.9% (-5.0 minutes), respectively (p < 0.00001 for all). MR exam times decreased 9.7% (-3.5 minutes) and patients' overall time on site decreased 15.2% (-8.0 minutes). The proportions of patients actively using the digital patient portal (56.1%-70.1%) and completing forms electronically prior to arrival (24.9%-47.1%) increased (p < 0.0001 for both). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Workflow changes necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure safety of patients and staff have permitted higher outpatient throughput.

OBJECTIVE:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in significant loss of radiologic volume as a result of shelter-at-home mandates and delay of non-time-sensitive imaging studies to preserve capacity for the pandemic. We analyze the volume-related impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on six academic medical systems (AMSs), three in high COVID-19 surge (high-surge) and three in low COVID-19 surge (low-surge) regions, and a large national private practice coalition. We sought to assess adaptations, risks of actions, and lessons learned. METHODS:Percent change of 2020 volume per week was compared with the corresponding 2019 volume calculated for each of the 14 imaging modalities and overall total, outpatient, emergency, and inpatient studies in high-surge AMSs and low-surge AMSs and the practice coalition. RESULTS:Steep examination volume drops occurred during week 11, with slow recovery starting week 17. The lowest total AMS volume drop was 40% compared with the same period the previous year, and the largest was 70%. The greatest decreases were seen with screening mammography and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans, and the smallest decreases were seen with PET/CT, x-ray, and interventional radiology. Inpatient volume was least impacted compared with outpatient or emergency imaging. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Large percentage drops in volume were seen from weeks 11 through 17, were seen with screening studies, and were larger for the high-surge AMSs than for the low-surge AMSs. The lowest drops in volume were seen with modalities in which delays in imaging had greater perceived adverse consequences.

OBJECTIVE:Deep Learning (DL) image reconstruction has the potential to disrupt the current state of MR imaging by significantly decreasing the time required for MR exams. Our goal was to use DL to accelerate MR imaging in order to allow a 5-minute comprehensive examination of the knee, without compromising image quality or diagnostic accuracy. METHODS:A DL model for image reconstruction using a variational network was optimized. The model was trained using dedicated multi-sequence training, in which a single reconstruction model was trained with data from multiple sequences with different contrast and orientations. Following training, data from 108 patients were retrospectively undersampled in a manner that would correspond with a net 3.49-fold acceleration of fully-sampled data acquisition and 1.88-fold acceleration compared to our standard two-fold accelerated parallel acquisition. An interchangeability study was performed, in which the ability of 6 readers to detect internal derangement of the knee was compared for the clinical and DL-accelerated images. RESULTS:The study demonstrated a high degree of interchangeability between standard and DL-accelerated images. In particular, results showed that interchanging the sequences would result in discordant clinical opinions no more than 4% of the time for any feature evaluated. Moreover, the accelerated sequence was judged by all six readers to have better quality than the clinical sequence. CONCLUSIONS:An optimized DL model allowed for acceleration of knee images which performed interchangeably with standard images for the detection of internal derangement of the knee. Importantly, readers preferred the quality of accelerated images to that of standard clinical images.

OBJECTIVE:To characterize national trends in oncologic imaging (OI) utilization. METHODS:This retrospective cross-sectional study used 2004 and 2016 CMS 5% Carrier Claims Research Identifiable Files. Radiologist-performed, primary noninvasive diagnostic imaging examinations were identified from billed Current Procedural Terminology codes; CT, MRI, and PET/CT examinations were categorized as "advanced" imaging. OI examinations were identified from imaging claims' primary International Classification of Diseases-9 and International Classification of Diseases-10 codes. Imaging services were stratified by academic practice status and place of service. State-level correlations of oncologic advanced imaging utilization (examinations per 1,000 beneficiaries) with cancer prevalence and radiologist supply were assessed by Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS:The national Medicare sample included 5,030,955 diagnostic imaging examinations (1,218,144 of them advanced) in 2004 and 5,017,287 diagnostic imaging examinations (1,503,490 of them advanced) in 2016. In 2004 and 2016, OI represented 3.9% and 4.3%, respectively, of all imaging versus 10.8% and 9.5%, respectively, of advanced imaging. The percentage of advanced OI done in academic practices rose from 18.8% in 2004 to 34.1% in 2016, leaving 65.9% outside academia. In 2016, 58.0% of advanced OI was performed in the hospital outpatient setting and 23.9% in the physician office setting. In 2016, state-level oncologic advanced imaging utilization correlated with state-level radiologist supply (r = +0.489, P < .001) but not with state-level cancer prevalence (r = -0.139, P = .329). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Oncologic imaging usage varied between practice settings. Although the percentage of advanced OI done in academic settings nearly doubled from 2004 to 2016, the majority remained in nonacademic practices. State-level oncologic advanced imaging utilization correlated with radiologist supply but not cancer prevalence.