Faculty Bibliography

Background Factors affecting radiologists' performance in screening mammography interpretation remain poorly understood. Purpose To identify radiologists characteristics that affect screening mammography interpretation performance. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 1223 radiologists in the National Mammography Database (NMD) from 2008 to 2019 who could be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) datasets. NMD screening performance metrics were extracted. Acceptable ranges were defined as follows: recall rate (RR) between 5% and 12%; cancer detection rate (CDR) of at least 2.5 per 1000 screening examinations; positive predictive value of recall (PPV1) between 3% and 8%; positive predictive value of biopsies recommended (PPV2) between 20% and 40%; positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3) between the 25th and 75th percentile of study sample; invasive CDR of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample; and percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample. Radiologist characteristics extracted from CMS datasets included demographics, subspecialization, and clinical practice patterns. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression models were performed to identify characteristics independently associated with acceptable performance for the seven metrics. The most influential characteristics were defined as those independently associated with the majority of the metrics (at least four). Results Relative to radiologists practicing in the Northeast, those in the Midwest were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV1, PPV2, and CDR (odds ratio [OR], 1.4-2.5); those practicing in the West were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV2, and PPV3 (OR, 1.7-2.1) but less likely to achieve acceptable invasive CDR (OR, 0.6). Relative to general radiologists, breast imagers were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, invasive CDR, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 1.4-4.4). Those performing diagnostic mammography were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, PPV3, invasive CDR, and CDR (OR, 1.9-2.9). Those performing breast US were less likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 0.5-0.7). Conclusion The geographic location of the radiology practice, subspecialization in breast imaging, and performance of diagnostic mammography are associated with better screening mammography performance; performance of breast US is associated with lower performance. ^©RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To assess gender balance amongst invited speakers at 2 national radiology conferences over the past decade. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:The 2009, 2014, and 2019 Association of University Radiologists (AUR) and American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) conference programs were evaluated for the number and gender of invited speakers, as well as various presentation characteristics. Gender balance was stratified across conferences and years. RESULTS:The final analysis included 1657 invited speakers and 45, 602 minutes of presentation. AUR showed a nonsignificant increase in the percent of presentations by women from 42.2% to 46.5% and in the percent of distinct female presenters from 41.6% to 46.0%. For ARRS, percentage of female presenters varied minimally from 36.1% to 38.2%. In AUR 2009, female presenters spoke on average 5.7min less than men (P= 0.042) and 6.5% of women gave lectures over 30 minutes vs 22.2% of men (P = 0.032). Subsequent AUR and ARRS conferences did not demonstrate presentation length disparities. For AUR, no keynote female speaker was identified. For ARRS, there was no significant difference in percentage of keynote speakers based on gender (P ≥0.516). A disproportionately high percentage of presentations before 8am (44.4%-66.7%) were by women. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Female representation was greater than among the overall radiology workforce, highlighting a role of national societies in promoting female radiologists. Nonetheless, such representation is confounded by disproportionate underrepresentation in visibility of invited talks. While improvement in some presentation measures were observed, continued efforts are warranted to promote equal opportunities for female radiologists at national conferences.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Lumbar punctures may be performed by many different types of health care providers. We evaluated the percentages of lumbar punctures performed by radiologists-versus-nonradiologist providers, including changes with time and discrepancies between specialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS:< .001). CONCLUSIONS:Radiologists now perform most lumbar puncture procedures for Medicare beneficiaries in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. The continuing shift in lumbar puncture responsibility from other specialists to radiologists has implications for clinical workflows, cost, radiation exposure, and postgraduate training.

OBJECTIVE:The Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network (R-SCAN) is a quality improvement program through which patients, referring clinicians, and radiologists collaborate to improve imaging appropriateness based on Choosing Wisely recommendations and ACR Appropriateness Criteria. R-SCAN was shown previously to increase the odds of obtaining an appropriate, higher patient or diagnostic value, imaging study. In the current study, we aimed to estimate the potential imaging cost savings associated with R-SCAN use for the Medicare population. MATERIAL AND METHODS/METHODS:The R-SCAN data set was used to determine the proportion of appropriate and lesser value imaging studies performed, as well as the percent change in the total number of imaging studies performed, before and after an R-SCAN educational intervention. Using a separate CMS data set, we then identified the total number of relevant imaging studies and associated total costs using a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries in 2017. We applied R-SCAN proportions to the CMS data set to estimate the potential impact of the R-SCAN interventions across a broader Medicare population. RESULTS:We observed a substantial reduction in the costs associated with lesser value imaging in the R-SCAN cohort, totaling $260,000 over 3.5 months. When extrapolated to the Medicare population, the potential cost reductions associated with the decrease in lesser value imaging totaled $433 million yearly. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:If expanded broadly, R-SCAN interventions can result in substantial savings to the Medicare program.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Concerns regarding increasing utilization of non-vascular extremity ultrasound (US) imaging led to the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Editorial Panel separating a singular billing code into distinct comprehensive and focused examination codes with differential reimbursement. We explore this policy change's temporal association with utilization. METHODS:Using Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files, we identified all nonvascular extremity US services billed for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries between 1994 and 2017. These included generic (CPT code 76880 from 1994 to 2010), complete (code 76881 from 2011 to 2017), and limited (code 76882 from 2011 to 2017) examinations. Annual utilization per 100,000 beneficiaries was computed and stratified by billing specialty. Compound annual growth rates were calculated. RESULTS:Radiologists and podiatrists were the top 2 billing specialties for nonvascular extremity US examinations. From 1994 to 2010, radiologist services increased 6.1% annually. Following the 2011 code separation, radiologists' utilization increased 2.7% annually for complete and 12.3% for limited exams. Between 1994 and 2017, radiologists' market share decreased 72.8% to 40.4%. From 1994 to 2010, podiatrist services increased 87.1% annually. Following the code separation, podiatrists' annual utilization growth stabilized 0.4% for complete and 0.6% for limited exams. Podiatrists' market share was 9.1% in 2001, peaked at 31.3% in 2009, and declined to 14.3% in 2017. CONCLUSIONS:Prior rapid growth in extremity nonvascular US for podiatrists slowed considerably following CPT code separation in 2011. Subsequent service growth has largely been related to less costly, focused examinations performed by radiologists. Further study may help better understand how CPT coding changes alter imaging utilization more broadly.

To assess changing utilization of extremity angiography from 2001 to 2016, focusing on modalities and provider specialties. Medicare PSPS Master Files from 2001-2016 and POSPUF from 2016 were used to determine overall and specialty utilization of diagnostic catheter angiography (DCA), CT angiography (CTA), and MR angiography (MRA). From 2001 to 2016, extremity angiography increased from 1107 to 1590 extremities imaged per 100,000 beneficiaries, with rapid expansion of CTA (22 in 2001 to 619 in 2009; plateau of 645 in 2016), but declines in DCA (1039 to 914) and MRA (45 to 30). Over time, extremity angiography shifted from 94% DCA, 4% MRA, and 2% CTA to 58% DCA, 41% CTA, and 2% MRA. For radiologists, extremity angiography increased slightly (741 to 767) with increases in CTA (20 to 595) and large decreases in DCA (681 to 145), with MRA remaining low (40 to 27). Extremity angiography increased for cardiologists (197 to 349) and vascular surgeons (87 to 351), both overwhelmingly performing DCA. Radiologists' share of all extremity angiography shifted from 67% to 48%, with interventionalists (47%), generalists (43%), and abdominal radiologists (7.4%) providing most radiologist services in 2016. Throughout, radiologists were the dominant providers of CTA (89% to 92%) and MRA (89% to 90%). Extremity angiography utilization in Medicare beneficiaries increased nearly 50% from 2001 to 2016, largely related to CTA performed by radiologists. Of radiologists, interventionalists and generalists together render most services. Cardiologists and surgeons assumed a large share of DCA previously performed by radiologists.