Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction scores for interventional radiologists (IRs) across the United States using a leading physician ratings website. METHODS: The physician ratings website Healthgrades was manually queried for all 2,774 Medicare-participating self-designated IRs. All patient-reviewed IRs for whom the primary "likelihood of recommending to family and friends" field was scored were included, resulting in 781 included IRs. Physician characteristics were extracted from Medicare data sets. All available patient satisfaction scores (1 [poor] to 5 [excellent]: likelihood to recommend, ease of scheduling, office environment, staff friendliness, trust in physician's decisions, how well physician explains condition, how well physician listens and answers questions, whether physician spends appropriate time with patients) and wait times were extracted from Healthgrades. Associations among measures were explored. RESULTS: IRs' mean likelihood-to-recommend score was 4.3 +/- 1.2 (median, 5.0; 64.5% received a score of 5; 10.5% received scores < 3). Mean scores ranged from 4.4 to 4.5 for office-related factors and from 4.3 to 4.5 for physician-related factors. Likelihood-to-recommend scores showed substantial correlations with office-related factors (r = 0.738 to 0.780) and physician-related factors (r = 0.918 to 0.946). Likelihood to recommend was significantly higher for IRs with shorter wait times (P < .001) but was not associated with physician gender or geographic region (P = 0.370-0.791), nor was there any correlation with physician age, years since graduation, or group practice size (r = -0.089 to 0.096). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction scores on a leading physician ratings website generally range from very good to excellent for US IRs. Most patients leaving reviews are likely to recommend their own IRs to friends or family members. The likelihood to recommend is strongly associated with differences in wait times.

PURPOSE: To assess trends in publications in radiology journals designated as dealing with patient-centered care. METHODS: PubMed was searched for articles in radiology journals for which the article's record referenced patient-centered/patient-centric care. Among these, original research articles were identified and assigned major themes. Trends were assessed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 115 articles in radiology journals designated as dealing with patient-centered care were identified, including 40 original research articles. The number of articles annually ranged from 0 to 4 in 2000-2008, 5 to 9 in 2010-2012, 14 to 15 in 2013-2014, and 25 in 2015. Only four radiology journals had published more than one of the original research articles. Original research articles' most common themes were: optimization of patients' access to reports and images (n=7); patients' examination experience (5); image evaluation (n=4); radiologists meeting with patients (n=4); improving patients' knowledge of imaging (n=3); examination wait times/efficiency (n=3); examination utilization/appropriateness (n=3); and IT enhancements (n=3). A total of 13 of 40 original research articles solicited opinions from patients. One study involved patients in educating trainees regarding patient-centered care. No study involved patients in system-level decisions regarding health care design and delivery. CONCLUSION: Articles dealing with patient-centered care in radiology are increasing, though they remain concentrated in a limited number of journals. Though major themes included image/report access, patient experiences, and radiologists meeting with patients, many studies dealt with less clearly patient-centric topics such as examination interpretation, while inclusion of patients in systems design was lacking. Further research in radiology is encouraged to target a broader range of ideals of patient-centered care, such as diversity, autonomy, and compassion, and to incorporate greater patient engagement.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the American College of Radiology Incidental Findings Committee's (ACR-IFC) recommendations for defining and following up abnormal incidental abdominopelvic lymph nodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 59 lymph nodes satisfying ACR-IFC criteria as incidental (no malignancy or lymphoproliferative disorder) and with sufficient follow-up to classify as benign (biopsy, decreased size, >/=12-month stability) or malignant (biopsy, detection of primary malignancy combined with either fluorodeoxyglucose hyperactivity or increase in size of the node) were included. Two radiologists independently assessed nodes for suspicious features by ACR-IFC criteria (round with indistinct hilum, hypervascularity, necrosis, cluster >/=3 nodes, cluster >/=2 nodes in >/=2 stations, size >/=1 cm in retroperitoneum). Outcomes were assessed with attention to ACR-IFC's recommendation for initial 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 8.5% of nodes were malignant; 91.5% were benign. Two of six malignant nodes were stable at 3 to <6-month follow-up before diagnosis; diagnosis of four of five malignant nodes was facilitated by later development of non-nodal sites of tumor. A total of 13, 5, 8, and 9 nodes were deemed benign given a decrease at <3 months, 3-5 months, 6-11 months, or >/=12 months of follow-up. No ACR-IFC feature differentiated benign and malignant nodes (P = 0.164-1.0). A cluster >/=3 nodes was present in 88.1%-93.2% of nodes. A total of 96.6%-98.3% had >/=1 suspicious feature for both readers. Necrosis and hypervascularity were not identified in any node. CONCLUSIONS: ACR-IFC imaging features overwhelmingly classified incidental nodes as abnormal, although did not differentiate benign and malignant nodes. Nodes stable at the ACR-IFC's advised initial 3-month follow-up were occasionally proven malignant or decreased on further imaging. Refinement of imaging criteria to define nodes of particularly high risk, integrated with other clinical criteria, may help optimize the follow-up of incidental abdominopelvic lymph nodes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We review recent literature surrounding the use of prebiopsy prostate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy in men at risk for prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Large series have strengthened the case for the use of MRI prior to prostate biopsy to maximize the detection of clinically significant disease, reduce the detection of clinically insignificant disease, and allow for tumor localization during targeted biopsy. Prebiopsy MRI followed by targeted biopsy appears to have the ability to overcome the limitations of the standard 12-core template. Use of MRI and targeted biopsy in the setting of a prior negative biopsy is supported by the literature and a recent consensus statement by the American Urological Association and the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-Focused Panel but is contingent upon the availability and quality of multiparametric MRI acquisition and interpretation. In men with no previous biopsy, MRI and targeted biopsy appears to increase detection of clinically significant disease compared with systematic biopsy while reducing detection of indolent disease. The addition of prostate cancer biomarkers and predictive nomograms may further enhance prebiopsy risk assessment. SUMMARY: Prostate MRI prior to biopsy may guide counseling regarding prostate cancer risk, allow for accurate tumor localization during targeted biopsy, and increase detection of clinically significant cancer while limiting detection of indolent disease. Its use prior to biopsy, in conjunction with biomarkers and predictive nomograms, may allow deferral of biopsy in select cases.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess features of patient satisfaction scores for U.S. radiologists using a popular physician rating website. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient reviews were retrieved from the website RateMDs for all listed radiologists in all 297 U.S. cities with population 100,000 or greater. Reviews included rating scores of 1-5 (5 = highest) in four categories (staff, punctuality, knowledge, and helpfulness). Additional physician information was obtained from Medicare files. Common words in patient free-text comments were assessed. Statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: We identified 1891 patient reviews for 1259 radiologists. In all four categories, the most common score was 5 for excellent (62.7-74.3%), and the second most common score was 1 for terrible (13.5-20.4%); scores of 2-4 were far less frequent (1.9-11.6%). Scores for all four categories highly correlated with one another (r = 0.781-0.951). Radiologists in the Northeast scored significantly lower (p < 0.001) than those elsewhere for both staff and punctuality. Radiologists attending a designated top 50 medical school showed nonsignificant trends toward lower scores for helpfulness (p = 0.073) and knowledge (p = 0.062). The most common words in free-text comments for positive reviews were "caring," "knowledgeable," and "professional." For negative reviews, "rude," "pain," and "unprofessional" were most common. CONCLUSION: Overall, most radiologists rated online by their patients score well, but reviews tended to be either strongly positive or negative. Scores across various categories are highly correlated, suggesting that there is a halo effect. Radiologists should recognize the effect of both facility- and radiologist-related factors in influencing patients' overall perceptions.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a survey-based assessment of current contrast reaction training in US diagnostic radiology residency programs. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to radiology residency program directors from 9/2015-11/2015. RESULTS: 25.7% of programs responded. 95.7% of those who responded provide contrast reaction management training. 89.4% provide didactic lectures (occurring yearly in 71.4%). 37.8% provide hands-on simulation training (occurring yearly in 82.3%; attended by both faculty and trainees in 52.9%). CONCLUSION: Wide variability in contrast reaction education in US diagnostic radiology residency programs reveals an opportunity to develop and implement a national curriculum.

Purpose To test the impact of existing Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 (V2) decision rules, as well as of proposed adjustments to these decision rules, on detection of Gleason score (GS) 7 or greater (GS >/=7) prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Two radiologists independently provided PI-RADS V2 scores for the dominant lesion on 343 prostate magnetic resonance (MR) examinations. Diagnostic performance for GS >/=7 tumor was assessed by using MR imaging-ultrasonography fusion-targeted biopsy as the reference. The impact of existing PI-RADS V2 decision rules, as well as a series of exploratory proposed adjustments, on the frequency of GS >/=7 tumor detection, was evaluated. Results A total of 210 lesions were benign, 43 were GS 6, and 90 were GS >/=7. Lesions were GS >/=7 in 0%-4.1% of PI-RADS categories 1 and 2, 11.4%-27.1% of PI-RADS category 3, 44.4%-49.3% of PI-RADS category 4, and 72.1%-73.7% of PI-RADS category 5 lesions. PI-RADS category 4 or greater had sensitivity of 78.9%-87.8% and specificity of 75.5%-79.1 for detecting GS >/=7 tumor. The frequency of GS >/=7 tumor for existing PI-RADS V2 decision rules was 30.0%-33.3% in peripheral zone (PZ) lesions upgraded from category 3 to 4 based on dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) score of positive; 50.0%-66.7% in transition zone (TZ) lesions upgraded from category 3 to 4 based on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) score of 5; and 71.7%-72.7% of lesions in both zones upgraded from category 4 to 5 based on size of 15 mm or greater. The frequency of GS >/=7 tumor for proposed adjustments to the decision rules was 30.0%-60.0% for TZ lesions upgraded from category 3 to 4 based on DWI score of 4; 33.3%-57.1% for TZ lesions upgraded from category 3 to 4 based on DCE score of positive when incorporating new criteria (unencapsulated sheetlike enhancement) for DCE score of positive in TZ; and 56.4%-61.9% for lesions in both zones upgraded from category 4 to 5 based on size of 10-14 mm. Other proposed adjustments yielded GS >/=7 tumor in less than 15% of cases for one or more readers. Conclusion Existing PI-RADS V2 decision rules exhibited reasonable performance in detecting GS >/=7 tumor. Several proposed adjustments to the criteria (in TZ, upgrading category 3 to 4 based on DWI score of 4 or modified DCE score of positive; in PZ or TZ, upgrading category 4 to 5 based on size of 10-14 mm) may also have value for this purpose. (c) RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how ipsilateral (ipsi) and contralateral (contra) systematic biopsies (SB) impacts detection of clinically significant versus insignificant prostate cancer (PCa) in men with unilateral MRI lesion undergoing MRI fusion target biopsy (MRF-TB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 211 cases with one unilateral MRI lesion were subjected to SB and MRF-TB. Biopsy tissue cores from the MRF-TB, ipsi-SB and contra-SB were analyzed separately. RESULTS: A direct relationship was observed between MRI suspicious score (SS) and detection of any cancer, Gleason 6 PCa and Gleason > 6 PCa. MRF-TB alone, MRF-TB + ipsi-SB and MRF-TB + contra-SB detected 64.1%, 89.1% and 76.1% of all PCa, respectively, 53.5%, 81.4% and 69.8% of Gleason 6 PCa, respectively, and 73.5%, 96.0% and 81.6% of Gleason >6 PCa, respectively. MRF-TB + ipsi-SB detected 96% of clinically significant PCa and avoided detection of 18.6% of clinically insignificant PCa. MRF-TB + contra-SB detected 81.6% of clinically significant PCa and avoided detection of 30.2% of clinically insignificant PCa. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that ipsi-SB should be added to MRF-TB as detection of clinically significant PCa increases with only a modest increase in clinically insignificant PCa detection. Contra-SB in this setting may be deferred since it primarily detects clinically insignificant PCa.