Faculty Bibliography

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: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: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.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The educational value of the daily resident readout, a vital component of resident training, has been markedly diminished due to a significant decrease in imaging volume and case mix diversity. The goal of this study was to create a "simulated" daily readout (SDR) to restore the educational value of the daily readout. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:To create the SDR the following tasks were performed; selection of cases for a daily worklist for each resident rotation, comprising a combination of normal and abnormal cases; determination of the correct number of cases and the appropriate mix of imaging modalities for each worklist; development of an "educational" environment consisting of separate "instances" of both our Picture Archive Communication System and reporting systems; and the anonymization of all of the cases on the worklists. Surveys of both residents and faculty involved in the SDR were performed to assess its effectiveness. RESULTS:Thirty-two residents participated in the SDR. The daily worklists for the first 20 days of the SDR included 3682 cases. An average of 480 cases per day was dictated by the residents. Surveys of the residents and the faculty involved in the SDR demonstrated that both agreed that the SDR effectively mimics a resident's daily work on rotations and preserves resident education during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 crisis. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The development of the SDR provided an effective method of preserving the educational value of the daily readout experience of radiology residents, despite severe decreases in imaging exam volume and case mix diversity during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic.

The ACR recognizes that radiology practices are grappling with when and how to safely resume routine radiology care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although it is unclear how long the pandemic will last, it may persist for many months. Throughout this time, it will be important to perform safe, comprehensive, and effective care for patients with and patients without COVID-19, recognizing that asymptomatic transmission is common with this disease. Local idiosyncrasies prevent a single prescriptive strategy. However, general considerations can be applied to most practice environments. A comprehensive strategy will include consideration of local COVID-19 statistics; availability of personal protective equipment (PPE); local, state, and federal government mandates; institutional regulatory guidance; local safety measures; health care worker availability; patient and health care worker risk factors; factors specific to the indication(s) for radiology care; and examination or procedure acuity. An accurate risk-benefit analysis of postponing versus performing a given routine radiology examination or procedure often is not possible due to many unknown and complex factors. However, this is the overriding principle: If the risk of illness or death to a health care worker or patient from health care-acquired COVID-19 is greater than the risk of illness or death from delaying radiology care, the care should be delayed; however, if the opposite is true, the radiology care should proceed in a timely fashion.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to significantly disrupt the way radiology will be practiced in the near future, but several issues need to be resolved before AI can be widely implemented in daily practice. These include the role of the different stakeholders in the development of AI for imaging, the ethical development and use of AI in healthcare, the appropriate validation of each developed AI algorithm, the development of effective data sharing mechanisms, regulatory hurdles for the clearance of AI algorithms, and the development of AI educational resources for both practicing radiologists and radiology trainees. This paper details these issues and presents possible solutions based on discussions held at the 2019 meeting of the International Society for Strategic Studies in Radiology. KEY POINTS: • Radiologists should be aware of the different types of bias commonly encountered in AI studies, and understand their possible effects. • Methods for effective data sharing to train, validate, and test AI algorithms need to be developed. • It is essential for all radiologists to gain an understanding of the basic principles, potentials, and limits of AI.

CT technologists, like radiologists, are at risk of increased stress and burnout due to ever increasing clinical and workload demands. To mitigate these issues, radiology facilities need to be prepared to actively address and resolve issues that impact the technologist satisfaction. At our institution, a Process Improvement Committee was formed to identify and alleviate workplace stressors faced by CT technologists. As a result of the initiative, our CT department has evolved into a technologist-driven department in which experienced and effective technologists play a large role in fostering efficient and patient-centered care, while feeling empowered to function as leaders in their work environment. In this article, a senior CT technologist provides a first-hand account of the process changes from the technologist's perspective, focusing on strategies for establishing a supportive system that allows technologists to thrive in providing patient-centered care even in the busiest of clinical contexts.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to assess the perceptions of radiologists and emergency medicine (EM) providers regarding the quality, value, and challenges associated with using outside imaging (i.e., images obtained at facilities other than their own institution). MATERIALS AND METHODS. We surveyed radiologists and EM providers at a large academic medical center regarding their perceptions of the availability and utility of outside imaging. RESULTS. Thirty-four of 101 radiologists (33.6%) and 38 of 197 EM providers (19.3%) responded. A total of 32.4% of radiologists and 55.3% of EM providers had confidence in the quality of images from outside community facilities; 20.6% and 44.7%, respectively, had confidence in the interpretations of radiologists from these outside facilities. Only 23.5% of radiologists and 5.3% of EM physicians were confident in their ability to efficiently access reports (for outside images, 47.1% and 5.3%). Very few radiologists and EM providers had accessed imaging reports from outside facilities through an available stand-alone portal. A total of 40.6% of radiologists thought that outside reports always or frequently reduced additional imaging recommendations (62.5% for outside images); 15.6% thought that reports changed interpretations of new examinations (37.5% for outside images); and 43.8% thought that reports increased confidence in interpretations of new examinations (75.0% for outside images). A total of 29.4% of EM providers thought that access to reports from outside facilities reduced repeat imaging (64.7% for outside images), 41.2% thought that they changed diagnostic or management plans (50.0% for outside images), and 50.0% thought they increased clinical confidence (67.6% for outside images). CONCLUSION. Radiologists and EM providers perceive high value in sharing images from outside facilities, despite quality concerns. Substantial challenges exist in accessing these images and reports from outside facilities, and providers are unlikely to do so using separate systems. However, even if information technology solutions for seamless image integration are adopted, providers' lack of confidence in outside studies may remain an important barrier.

OBJECTIVE:Guideline-concordant follow-up of incidental lung nodules (ILNs) is suboptimal. We aimed to improve communication and tracking for follow-up of these common incidental findings detected on imaging examinations. METHODS:We implemented a process improvement program for reporting and tracking ILNs at a large urban academic health care system. A multidisciplinary committee designed, tested, and implemented a multipart tracking system in the electronic health record (EHR) that included Fleischner Society management recommendations for each patient. Plan-do-study-act cycles addressed gaps in the follow-up of ILNs, broken into phases of developing and testing components of the conceived EHR toolkit. RESULTS:The program resulted in standardized text macros with discrete categories and recommendations for ILNs, with ability to track each case in a work list within the EHR. The macros incorporated evidence-based guidelines and also input of collaborating clinical referrers in the respective specialty. The ILN macro was used 3,964 times over the first 2 years, increasing from 104 to over 300 uses per month. Usage spread across all subspecialty divisions, with nonthoracic radiologists currently accounting for 80% (56 of 70) of the radiologists using the system and 31% (1,230 of 3,964) of all captured ILNs. When radiologists indicated ILNs as warranting telephone communication to provider offices, completion was documented in 100% of the cases captured in the EHR-embedded tracking report. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:An EHR-based system for managing incidental nodules enables case tracking with exact recommendations, provider communication, and completion of follow-up testing. Future efforts will target consistent radiologist use of the system and follow-up completion.