Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess variability in imaging facilities' adherence to the minimum technical standards for prostate magnetic resonance imaging acquisition established by Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 (v2). METHODS: A total of 107 prostate magnetic resonance imaging examinations performed at 107 unique imaging facilities after the release of PI-RADS v2 and that were referred to a tertiary care center for secondary interpretation were included. Image sets, DICOM headers, and outside reports were reviewed to assess adherence to 21 selected PI-RADS v2 minimum technical standards. RESULTS: Hardware arrangements were 23.1%, 1.5T without endorectal coil; 7.7%, 1.5T with endorectal coil; 63.5%, 3T without endorectal coil; and 5.8%, 3T with endorectal coil. Adherence to minimum standards was lowest on T2 weighted imaging (T2WI) for frequency resolution /=1400 s/mm2) images were included in 58.0% (calculated in 25.9%). Adherence to T2WI phase resolution and DWI inter-slice gap were greater (P < .05) at 3T than at 1.5T. Adherence did not differ (P > .05) for any parameter between examinations performed with and without an endorectal coil. Adherence was greater for examinations performed at teaching facilities for T2WI slice thickness and DCE temporal resolution (P < .05). Adherence was not better for examinations performed in 2016 than in 2015 for any parameter (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Facilities' adherence to PI-RADS v2 minimum technical standards was variable, being particularly poor for T2WI frequency resolution and DCE temporal resolution. The standards warrant greater community education. Certain technical standards may be too stringent, and revisions should be considered.

PURPOSE: The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) Quality performance category is the successor to the Physician Quality and Reporting System (PQRS) program and now contributes to physicians' income adjustments based upon performance rates calculated for a minimum of six measures. We assess radiologists' frequency of reporting PQRS measures as a marker of preparedness for MACRA. METHODS: Medicare-participating radiologists were randomly searched through the Physician Compare website until identifying 1,000 radiologists who reported at least one PQRS measure. Associations were explored between the number of reported measures and radiologist characteristics. RESULTS: For PQRS-reporting radiologists, the number of reported PQRS measures was 1 (25.2%), 2 (27.3%), 3 (18.2%), 4 (19.3%), 5 (8.3%), and 6 (1.7%). The most commonly reported measures were "documenting radiation exposure time for procedures using fluoroscopy" (64.3%) and "accurate measurement of carotid artery narrowing" (56.8%). Reporting at least two measures was significantly (P < .001) more likely for nonacademic (77.3%) versus academic (44.9%) radiologists, generalists (82.7%) versus subspecialists (59.1%), and radiologists in smaller (/=100 members) (39.7%) practices. Reporting six measures was significantly (P < .05) more likely for generalists (2.6%) versus subspecialists (0.4%). CONCLUSION: Most PQRS-reporting radiologists reported only one or two measures, well below MACRA's requirement of six. Radiologists continuing such reporting levels will likely be disadvantaged in terms of potential payment adjustments under MACRA. Lower reporting rates for academic and subspecialized radiologists, as well as those in larger practices, may relate to such radiologists' reliance on their hospitals or networks for PQRS reporting. Qualified clinical data registries should be embraced to facilitate more robust measure reporting.

Radiology has historically been at the forefront of innovation and the advancement of technology for the benefit of patient care. However, challenges to early implementation prevented most radiologists from adopting and integrating certified electronic health record technology (CEHRT) into their daily workflow despite the early and potential advantages it offered. This circumstance places radiology at a disadvantage in the two payment pathways of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015: the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and advanced alternative payment models (APMs). Specifically, not integrating CEHRT hampers radiology's ability to receive bonus points in the quality performance category of the MIPS and in parallel threatens certain threshold requirements for advanced APMs under the new Quality Payment Program. Radiology must expand the availability and use of CEHRT to satisfy existing performance measures while creating new performance measures that create value for the health care system. In addition, radiology IT vendors will need to ensure their products (eg, radiology information systems, PACS, and radiology reporting systems) are CEHRT compliant and approved. Such collective efforts will increase radiologists' quality of patient care, contribution to value driven activities, and overall health care relevance.

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.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare radiologists' and urologists' opinions regarding prostate MRI reporting. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Radiologist members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and urologist members of the Society of Urologic Oncology received an electronic survey regarding prostate MRI reporting. RESULTS: The response rate was 12% (135/1155) for Society of Abdominal Radiology and 8% (54/663) for Society of Urologic Oncology members. Most respondents in both specialties prefer Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) (radiologists, 84%; urologists, 84%), indicate that it is used at their institution (radiologists, 84%; urologists, 78%), understand its implications for patient care (radiologists, 89%; urologists, 71%), and agree that radiologists apply PI-RADSv2 categories correctly (radiologists, 57%; urologists, 61%). Both specialties agreed regarding major barriers to PI-RADSv2 adoption: radiologist inexperience using PI-RADSv2 (radiologists, 51%; urologists, 51%), urologist inexperience using PI-RADSv2 (radiologists, 46%; urologists, 51%), and lack of standardized templates (radiologists, 47%; urologists, 52%). The specialties disagreed (p