Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To determine the utility of an automated radiology-pathology feedback tool. METHODS:We previously developed a tool that automatically provides radiologists with pathology results related to imaging examinations they interpreted. The tool also allows radiologists to mark the results as concordant or discordant. Five abdominal radiologists prospectively scored their own discordant results related to their previously interpreted abdominal ultrasound, CT, and MR interpretations between August 2017 and June 2018. Radiologists recorded whether they would have followed up on the case if there was no automated alert, reason for the discordance, whether the result required further action, prompted imaging rereview, influenced future interpretations, enhanced teaching files, or inspired a research idea. RESULTS:There were 234 total discordances (range 30-66 per radiologist), and 70.5% (165 of 234) of discordances would not have been manually followed up in the absence of the automated tool. Reasons for discordances included missed findings (10.7%; 25 of 234), misinterpreted findings (29.1%; 68 of 234), possible biopsy sampling error (13.3%; 31 of 234), and limitations of imaging techniques (32.1%; 75/234). In addition, 4.7% (11 of 234) required further radiologist action, including report addenda or discussion with referrer or pathologist, and 93.2% (218 of 234) prompted radiologists to rereview the images. Radiologists reported that they learned from 88% (206 of 234) of discordances, 38.6% (90 of 233) of discordances probably or definitely influenced future interpretations, 55.6% (130 of 234) of discordances prompted the radiologist to add the case to his or her teaching files, and 13.7% (32 of 233) inspired a research idea. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Automated pathology feedback provides a valuable opportunity for radiologists across experience levels to learn, increase their skill, and improve patient care.

Pyelonephritis refers to infection involving the renal parenchyma and renal pelvis. In most patients, uncomplicated pyelonephritis is diagnosed clinically and responds quickly to appropriate antibiotic treatment. If treatment is delayed, the patient is immunocompromised, or for other reasons, microabscesses that form during the acute phase of pyelonephritis may coalesce, forming a renal abscess. Patients with underlying diabetes are more vulnerable to complications, including emphysematous pyelonephritis in addition to abscess formation. Additionally, diabetics may not have the typical flank tenderness that helps to differentiate pyelonephritis from a lower urinary tract infection. Additional high-risk populations may include those with anatomic abnormalities of the urinary tract, vesicoureteral reflux, obstruction, pregnancy, nosocomial infection, or infection by treatment-resistant pathogens. Treatment goals include symptom relief, elimination of infection to avoid renal damage, and identification of predisposing factors to avoid future recurrences. The primary imaging modalities used in patients with pyelonephritis are CT, MRI, and ultrasound. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study is to compare dose-length product (DLP)-based calculation of effective dose (EDDLP) with Monte Carlo simulation organ-based calculation of effective dose (EDMCO) in 16- and 64-MDCT examinations, with the use of clinical examinations with automatic tube current modulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Dose data were obtained from 50 consecutive unenhanced head CT examinations, unenhanced chest CT examinations, and unenhanced and contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT examinations performed using 16- and 64-MDCT scanners, as well as from 50 pulmonary CT angiography (CTA) examinations performed using a 64-MDCT scanner and 31 pulmonary CTA examinations performed using a 16-MDCT scanner. The EDMCO and the mean patient effective diameter were calculated using commercially available software. The EDDLP was also calculated. Both the mean difference and percentage difference between EDDLP and EDMCO were calculated, and they were statistically compared according to patient sex, type of examination performed, and type of scanner used. RESULTS:EDDLP significantly underestimated the EDMCO by 0.3 mSv (19%) for men who underwent unenhanced head CT, 0.5 mSv (29%) for women who underwent unenhanced head CT, 0.9-1.4 mSv (9-13%) for men who underwent chest CT, and 4.7-4.8 mSv (39%) for women who underwent chest CT (p < 0.001). The EDDLP overestimated the EDMCO by 1.9-2.0 mSv (12-14%) for men who underwent abdominopelvic CT (p < 0.001), with no significant difference noted for women who underwent abdominopelvic CT's. No significant difference was noted in the percentage difference in ED between the 16- and 64-MDCT scanners (p ≥ 0.13). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:EDDLP underestimates EDMCO, the reference standard for dose calculation, by 19-39% in unenhanced head CT examinations and, among women, in chest CT examinations. EDDLP deviates from EDMCO by less than 15% for chest CT examinations of men and for abdominopelvic CT. These differences can be attributed to variable patient body habitus, automatic tube current modulation, and sex-neutral k-coefficients, and they should be considered when calculating ED, particularly in women.

Purpose To characterize clinically important prostate cancers missed at multiparametric (MP) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Materials and Methods The local institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective single-center study, which included 100 consecutive patients who had undergone MP MR imaging and subsequent radical prostatectomy. A genitourinary pathologist blinded to MP MR findings outlined prostate cancers on whole-mount pathology slices. Two readers correlated mapped lesions with reports of prospectively read MP MR images. Readers were blinded to histopathology results during prospective reading. At histopathologic examination, 80 clinically unimportant lesions (<5 mm; Gleason score, 3+3) were excluded. The same two readers, who were not blinded to histopathologic findings, retrospectively reviewed cancers missed at MP MR imaging and assigned a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 score to better understand false-negative lesion characteristics. Descriptive statistics were used to define patient characteristics, including age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, PSA density, race, digital rectal examination results, and biopsy results before MR imaging. Student t test was used to determine any demographic differences between patients with false-negative MP MR imaging findings and those with correct prospective identification of all lesions. Results Of the 162 lesions, 136 (84%) were correctly identified with MP MR imaging. Size of eight lesions was underestimated. Among the 26 (16%) lesions missed at MP MR imaging, Gleason score was 3+4 in 17 (65%), 4+3 in one (4%), 4+4 in seven (27%), and 4+5 in one (4%). Retrospective PI-RADS version 2 scores were assigned (PI-RADS 1, n = 8; PI-RADS 2, n = 7; PI-RADS 3, n = 6; and PI-RADS 4, n = 5). On a per-patient basis, MP MR imaging depicted clinically important prostate cancer in 99 of 100 patients. At least one clinically important tumor was missed in 26 (26%) patients, and lesion size was underestimated in eight (8%). Conclusion Clinically important lesions can be missed or their size can be underestimated at MP MR imaging. Of missed lesions, 58% were not seen or were characterized as benign findings at second-look analysis. Recognition of the limitations of MP MR imaging is important, and new approaches to reduce this false-negative rate are needed. ^© RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the reproducibility and diagnostic performance of 2D and 3D ROIs for prostate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 56 patients with prostate cancer undergoing 3-T MRI including DWI (b = 50 and 1000 s/mm2) before radical prostatectomy. Histologic findings from prostatectomy specimens were reviewed to denote each patient's dominant tumor and a benign region with visually decreased ADC. Three readers independently measured the ADCs of both areas using an ROI placed on a single slice through the lesion (2D) and an ROI encompassing all slices through the lesion (3D). Readers repeated measurements after 3 weeks. Assessment included Bland-Altman analysis (coefficient of repeatability [CR] in which lower values indicated higher reliability) and ROC analysis. RESULTS: For intrareader variability, the CRs across readers for all ROIs were 9.9% for 2D and 9.3% for 3D. For tumor ROIs the CRs were 10.6% for 2D and 9.6% for 3D. For interreader variability, the CRs across readers for all ROIs were 17.1% for 2D and 20.5% for 3D and for tumor ROIs were 17.9% for 2D and 22.2% for 3D. For combined reader data, the AUCs for benign and malignant findings were 0.77 for 2D and 0.78 for 3D (p = 0.146). For differentiating Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 from GS > 3 + 3 tumors, the AUCs were 0.92 for 2D and 0.92 for 3D ROIs (p = 0.649). For differentiating GS /= 4 + 3 tumors, the AUCs were 0.70 for 2D and 0.67 for 3D ROIs (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Use of a 3D ROI did not improve intrareader or interreader reproducibility or diagnostic performance compared with use of a 2D ROI for prostate ADC measurements. Interreader reproducibility of 2D ROIs was suboptimal nonetheless.

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is increasingly incorporated into routine body magnetic resonance imaging protocols. DWI can assist with lesion detection and even in characterization. Quantitative DWI has exhibited promise in the discrimination between benign and malignant pathology, in the evaluation of the biologic aggressiveness, and in the assessment of the response to treatment. Unfortunately, inconsistencies in DWI acquisition parameters and analysis have hampered widespread clinical utilization. Focusing primarily on liver applications, this article will review the basic principles of quantitative DWI. In addition to standard mono-exponential fitting, the authors will discuss intravoxel incoherent motion and diffusion kurtosis imaging that involve more sophisticated approaches to diffusion quantification.

Renovascular hypertension is the most common type of secondary hypertension and is estimated to have a prevalence between 0.5% and 5% of the general hypertensive population, and an even higher prevalence among patients with severe hypertension and end-stage renal disease, approaching 25% in elderly dialysis patients. Investigation for renal artery stenosis is appropriate when clinical presentation suggests secondary hypertension rather than primary hypertension, when there is not another known cause of secondary hypertension, and when intervention would be carried out if a significant renal artery stenosis were identified. The primary imaging modalities used to screen for renal artery stenosis are CT, MRI, and ultrasound, with the selection of imaging dependent in part on renal function. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Renal transplantation is the treatment of choice in patients with end-stage renal disease because the 5-year survival rates range from 72% to 99%. Although graft survival has improved secondary to the introduction of newer immunosuppression drugs and the advancements in surgical technique, various complications still occur. Ultrasound is the first-line imaging modality for the evaluation of renal transplants in the immediate postoperative period and for long-term follow-up. In addition to depicting many of the potential complications of renal transplantation, ultrasound can also guide therapeutic interventions. Nuclear medicine studies, CT, and MRI are often helpful as complementary examinations for specific indications. Angiography remains the reference standard for vascular complications and is utilized to guide nonsurgical intervention. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

PURPOSE:The purpose of the study was to present a pictorial review of the long-term sequelae of acute pancreatitis on CT imaging as these findings can cause diagnostic confusion in the absence of a proper clinical history and/or prior CT imaging. METHODS:We retrospectively identified 81 patients who had an episode of acute pancreatitis with diagnostic findings on CT and also underwent one or more follow-up CT scans at least 1 month beyond the acute episode. The residual findings on all follow-up CT scans were tabulated, including the time interval since the initial bout of acute pancreatitis. RESULT:Residual inflammatory changes were present in 19.8% of cases, with a median time period lasting 86 days since the initial episode of acute pancreatitis. Residual fluid collections were seen in 27.2% and persisted for a median of 132 days. Three patients had residual solid-appearing inflammatory masses, which could be mistaken for neoplasms. Other long-term sequelae were also tabulated, including pancreatic ductal dilatation, pancreatic atrophy, new or increased pancreatic calcifications, biliary tract dilatation, central portal venous occlusion, and pseudoaneurysm formation. These residual findings and long-term complications are presented as a pictorial essay. CONCLUSION:Recognizing the spectrum of residual findings of acute pancreatitis, some of which can be long term, is important in the correct interpretation of a pancreatic CT. These findings can mimic acute pancreatitis or a pancreatic/peripancreatic neoplasm and often cause diagnostic confusion, especially in the absence of prior CT imaging.

This study aimed to determine the incidence of non-traumatic acute aortic injury (AAI) extending from the chest into the abdomen or pelvis in emergency department (ED) patients with acute aortic syndrome (AAS), to estimate the effective dose of the abdominopelvic portion of these CT exams, and to compare the number needed to screen (NNS) with the collective population radiation dose of imaging those stations. All patients (n = 238) presenting to the ED with AAS between March 2014 and June 2015 who were imaged per CT AAI protocol (noncontrast and contrast-enhanced CT angiography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis) were retrospectively identified in this IRB-approved HIPAA-compliant study. The Stanford classification for positive cases of AAI was further subclassified based on chest, abdominal, or pelvic involvement. The dose length product (DLP) of each exam was used to estimate the dose of the abdominal and pelvic stations and the collective effective dose for the population. There were five cases of aortic dissection (AD) and two of intramural hematoma (IMH), with an AAI incidence of 2.9/100. Three cases of AAI were confined to the chest. Two cases of AAI were confined to the chest and abdomen, and two cases involved the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. There was only one case of AAI involving the ascending aorta that extended into the abdomen or pelvis. The number needed to screen to identify (a) AAI extending from the chest into the abdomen or pelvis was 59.5 and (b) Stanford A AAI extending into the abdomen or pelvis was 238. The estimated mean effective dose for the abdominopelvic stations were unenhanced abdomen 2.3 mSv, unenhanced pelvis 3.3 mSv, abdominal CTA 2.5 mSv, and pelvic CTA 3.6 mSv. The collective effective doses to the abdomen and pelvis with unenhanced CT and CTA in 59.5 patients and 238 patients were 761.6 and 3046.4 mSv, respectively. While the estimated mean effective dose for imaging of the abdominopelvic stations are low, the collective effective dose should also be considered. It may be beneficial to modify or omit routine unenhanced CT and/or CTA of the abdomen/pelvis in this patient population in the absence of abdominal symptoms, and image the abdomen and pelvis in positive thoracic cases only.