Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to use patient reviews posted on Yelp.com, an online ratings website, to identify factors most commonly associated with positive versus negative patient perceptions of radiology imaging centers across the United States. METHODS: A total of 126 outpatient radiology centers from the 46 largest US cities were identified using Yelp.com; 1,009 patient reviews comprising 2,582 individual comments were evaluated. Comments were coded as pertaining to either the radiologist or other service items, and as expressing either a positive or negative opinion. Distribution of comments was compared with center ratings using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Overall, 14% of comments were radiologist related; 86% pertained to other aspects of service quality. Radiologist-related negative comments more frequent in low-performing centers (mean rating /=4) pertained to imaging equipment (25% versus 7%), report content (25% versus 2%), and radiologist professionalism (25% versus 2%) (P < .010). Other service-related negative comments more frequent in low-performing centers pertained to receptionist professionalism (70% versus 21%), billing (65% versus 10%), wait times (60% versus 26%), technologist professionalism (55% versus 12%), scheduling (50% versus 17%), and physical office conditions (50% versus 5%) (P < .020). Positive comments more frequent in high-performing centers included technologist professionalism (98% versus 55%), receptionist professionalism (79% versus 50%), wait times (72% versus 40%), and physical office conditions (64% versus 25%) (P < .020). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' perception of radiology imaging centers is largely shaped by aspects of service quality. Schedulers, receptionists, technologists, and billers heavily influence patient satisfaction in radiology. Thus, radiologists must promote a service-oriented culture throughout their practice.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize trends related to retracted publications within radiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed was queried to identify all articles with the publication type "retracted publication" or "notification of retraction." Articles published within radiology journals were identified using Journal Citation Reports' journal categories. Available versions of original articles and publication notices were accessed from journal websites. Citations to retracted publications were identified using Web of Science. Overall trends were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-eight retracted original research articles were identified within radiology journals since 1983, which included 1.1% of all PubMed "retracted publication" entries. Distinct PubMed entries were available for the retracted publication and retraction notification in 39 of 48 articles. The original PDF was available for 37 articles, although the articles were not watermarked as retracted in 23 cases. In six cases with a watermarked PDF, further searches identified nonwatermarked versions. Original HTML versions were available for 13 articles but 11 were not watermarked. The mean (+/- SD) delay between publication and retraction was 2.7 +/- 2.8 years (range, 0-16 years). The mean number of citations to retracted articles was 10.9 +/- 17.1 (range, 0-94 citations). Reasons for retraction included problematic or incorrect methods or results (although it typically was unclear whether these represented honest errors or misconduct) in 33.3% of cases, complete or partial duplicate publication in 33.3% of cases, plagiarism in 14.6% of cases, a permission issue in 8.3% of cases, the publisher's error in 6.3% of cases, and no identified reason in 6.3% of cases. One or no retractions occurred annually from 1986 to 2001, although two or more retractions occurred annually in nine of the 12 years from 2002 through 2013. CONCLUSION: Retraction represents an uncommon, yet potentially increasing, issue within radiology journals that publishers have inconsistently and insufficiently addressed. Greater awareness and training in proper biomedical research conduct, as well as establishment and enforcement of standardized publishers' policies, are warranted.

PURPOSE: The aim of this report is to describe our early experience with radiologist-led direct public education about imaging-based cancer screening examinations, with a focus on the level of satisfaction and the educational impact reported by session participants. METHODS: Subspecialty radiologists provided 1-hour educational sessions to small lay public audiences covering breast, prostate, and lung cancer screening, focusing on key radiologic screening tests. Subsequently, session participants completed a survey pertaining to their levels of satisfaction and the perceived impact of the sessions on knowledge of the diseases and relevant screening tests; results from all topic sessions were pooled for analysis. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen participants attended a total of 144 sessions. The large majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the sessions increased their understanding (95.4%), they gained information not obtained from clinic visit (88.1%), seeing radiology images helped their understanding (92.6%), they felt more involved in their own care (85.8%), they felt more prepared to undergo screening tests (87.4%), they were satisfied with the sessions' format (93.3%) and content (96.2%), their main questions were answered (88.3%), they would be interested in similar future radiologist-led sessions (88.5%), and they would recommend the sessions to friends (93.9%). The provided information (43.1%) and images (34.7%) were identified as the most helpful aspects of the sessions. CONCLUSION: Radiologist-led direct public education sessions about imaging-based cancer screening examinations yield high levels of audience satisfaction and add value to the public's understanding of the role of radiology and radiologists. Our experience may provide an encouraging model for other radiology practices in pursuing similar endeavors.

Purpose To determine the performance of dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the diagnosis of small (/= .122). At pairwise meta-regression analysis with either study origin from Asia or performance of hepatobiliary phase imaging, only gadoxetate disodium contrast agent showed significant independent association with higher sensitivity (P = .002-.007). Conclusion Results of this meta-analysis suggest that dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging has moderate sensitivity and excellent specificity in the detection of HCC up to 2 cm. Gadoxetate disodium contrast agent showed the strongest association with increased sensitivity. (c) RSNA, 2015 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

INTRODUCTION: There is increasing interest in using imaging in the detection and localization of prostate cancer (PCa). Both multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and HistoScanning (HS) have been independently evaluated in the detection and localization of PCa. We undertook a prospective, blinded comparison of mpMRI and HS for cancer localization among men undergoing radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Following approval by the institutional review board, men scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy, who had previously undergone mpMRI at our institution, were offered inclusion in the study. Those consenting underwent preoperative HS following induction of anesthesia; mpMRI, HS, and surgical step-section pathology were independently read by a single radiologist, urologist, and pathologist, respectively, in a blinded fashion. Disease maps created by each independent reader were compared and evaluated for concordance by a 5 persons committee consisting of 2 urologists, 2 pathologists, and 1 radiologist. Logistic regression for correlated data was used to assess and compare mpMRI and HS in terms of diagnostic accuracy for cancer detection. Generalized estimating equations based on binary logistic regression were used to model concordance between reader opinion and the reference standard assessment of the same lesion site or region as a function of imaging modality. RESULTS: Data from 31/35 men enrolled in the trial were deemed to be evaluable. On evaluation of cancer localization, HS identified cancer in 36/78 (46.2%) regions of interest, as compared with 41/78 (52.6%) on mpMRI (P = 0.3968). The overall accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and specificity for detection of disease within a region of interest were significantly better with mpMRI as compared with HS. HS detected 36/84 (42.9%) cancer foci as compared with 42/84 (50%) detected by mpMRI (P = 0.3678). Among tumors with Gleason score>6, mpMRI detected 19/22 (86.4%) whereas HS detected only 11/22 (50%, P = 0.0078). Similarly, among tumors>10mm in maximal diameter, mpMRI detected 28/34 (82.4%) whereas HS detected only 19/34 (55.9%, P = 0.0352). CONCLUSION: In our institution, the diagnostic accuracy of HS was inferior to that of mpMRI in PCa for PCa detection and localization. Although our study warrants validation from larger cohorts, it would suggest that the HS protocol requires further refinement before clinical implementation.

PURPOSE: Anxiety has been called a "harm" of screening mammography. The authors provided direct, interactive education to lay audiences and measured these sessions' impact on anxiety and any increased understanding of breast cancer screening. METHODS: Academic breast radiologist provided seven 1-hour sessions of structured lectures and question-and-answer periods. Lay language and radiologic images were used to discuss disease background, screening guidelines, and areas of debate. One hundred seventeen participants (mean age, 45 +/- 15 years) completed voluntary, anonymous, institutional review board-approved pre and postsession questionnaires relaying their attitudes regarding screening and the impact of the sessions. Results are summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Mean reported anxiety regarding screening (on a scale ranging from 1-5; 1 = no anxiety) was 2.5 +/- 1.3. Anxiety was attributed to unknown results (56.4%), anticipation of pain (21.8%), known risk factors (14.5%), general uncertainty (12.7%), waiting for results (9.1%), possibility of more procedures (3.6%), and personal breast cancer history (3.6%). Ninety-seven percent reported that immediate results would lower anxiety (78% of those women indicated a 75%-100% decrease in anxiety); 93% reported that radiologist consultation with images would lower anxiety (75.6% indicated a 75%-100% decrease in anxiety). After the lecture, women reported (on a scale ranging from 1-5) increased understanding of the topic (4.7 +/- 0.6), encouragement to screen (4.6 +/- 0.7), and reduced anxiety (4.0 +/- 1.1). Ninety-seven percent to 100% provided correct responses to these questions: rationale for screening in the absence of family history, recall does not equate to cancer diagnosis, benefit of prior films, and continued importance of physical examination. CONCLUSION: Attendees of radiologist-provided direct public lectures reported decreased anxiety and improved knowledge regarding screening mammography. The resultant reduced anxiety ("harm") and educational empowerment help enable informed decision making and may promote screening attendance.

OBJECTIVE: This review article explores recent advancements in PET/MRI for clinical oncologic imaging. CONCLUSION: Radiologists should understand the technical considerations that have made PET/MRI feasible within clinical workflows, the role of PET tracers for imaging various molecular targets in oncology, and advantages of hybrid PET/MRI compared with PET/CT. To facilitate this understanding, we discuss clinical examples (including gliomas, breast cancer, bone metastases, prostate cancer, bladder cancer, gynecologic malignancy, and lymphoma) as well as future directions, challenges, and areas for continued technical optimization for PET/MRI.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare the perceived quality of 3-T axial T2-weighted high-resolution 2D and high-resolution 3D fast spin-echo (FSE) endorectal MR images of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six radiologists independently reviewed paired 3-T axial T2-weighted high-resolution 2D and 3D FSE endorectal MR images of the prostates of 85 men in two sessions. In the first session (n = 85), each reader selected his or her preferred images; in the second session (n = 28), they determined their confidence in tumor identification and compared the depiction of the prostatic anatomy, tumor conspicuity, and subjective intrinsic image quality of images. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model, logistic regression, and the paired Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Three readers preferred the 2D acquisition (67-89%), and the other three preferred the 3D images (70-80%). The option for one of the techniques was not associated with any of the predictor variables. The 2D FSE images were significantly sharper than 3D FSE (p < 0.001) and significantly more likely to exhibit other (nonmotion) artifacts (p = 0.002). No other statistically significant differences were found. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that there are strong individual preferences for the 2D or 3D FSE MR images, but there was a wide variability among radiologists. There were differences in image quality (image sharpness and presence of artifacts not related to motion) but not in the sequences' ability to delineate the glandular anatomy and depict a cancerous tumor.

Between 2004 and 2012, US funding for the biomedical sciences decreased to historic lows. Health-related research was crippled by receiving only 1/20th of overall federal scientific funding. Despite the current funding climate, there is increased pressure on academic radiology programs to establish productive research programs. Whereas larger programs have resources that can be utilized at their institutions, small to medium-sized programs often struggle with lack of infrastructure and support. To address these concerns, the Association of University Radiologists' Radiology Research Alliance developed a task force to explore any untapped research productivity potential in these smaller radiology departments. We conducted an online survey of faculty at smaller clinically funded programs and found that while they were interested in doing research and felt it was important to the success of the field, barriers such as lack of resources and time were proving difficult to overcome. One potential solution proposed by this task force is a collaborative structured research model in which multiple participants from multiple institutions come together in well-defined roles that allow for an equitable distribution of research tasks and pooling of resources and expertise. Under this model, smaller programs will have an opportunity to share their unique perspective on how to address research topics and make a measureable impact on the field of radiology as a whole. Through a health services focus, projects are more likely to succeed in the context of limited funding and infrastructure while simultaneously providing value to the field.