Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess recent trends and characteristics in radiologist-practice separation across the United States. METHODS:Using the Medicare Physician Compare and Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File data sets, we linked all radiologists to associated group practices annually between 2014 and 2018 and assessed radiologist-practice separation over a variety of physician and group characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to estimate the likelihood of radiologist-practice separation. RESULTS:Of 25,228 unique radiologists associated with 4,381 unique group practices, 41.1% separated from at least one group practice between 2014 and 2018, and annual separation rates increased 38.4% over time (13.8% from 2014 to 2015 to 19.2% from 2017 to 2018). Radiologist-practice separation rates ranged from 57.4% in Utah to 26.3% in Virginia. Separation rates were 42.8% for general radiologists versus 38.2% for subspecialty radiologists. Among subspecialists, separation rates ranged from 43.0% for breast imagers to 33.5% for cardiothoracic radiologists. Early career status (odds ratio [OR] = 1.286) and late (OR = 1.554) career status were both independent positive predictors of radiologist-practice separation (both P < .001). Larger practice size (OR = 0.795), radiology-only (versus multispecialty) group (OR = 0.468), academic (versus nonacademic) practice (OR = 0.709), and abdominal (OR = 0.820), musculoskeletal (OR = 0.659), and neuroradiology (OR = 0.895) subspecialization were independent negative predictors (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS:With over 40% of radiologists separating from at least one practice in recent years, the US radiologist workforce is highly and increasingly mobile. Because reasons for separation (eg, resignation, practice acquisition) cannot be assessed using administrative data, further attention is warranted given the manifold financial, operational, and patient care implications.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:This study reports on the development of a novel 3D procedure planning technique to provide pre-ablation treatment planning for partial gland prostate cryoablation (cPGA). METHODS:Twenty men scheduled for partial gland cryoablation (cPGA) underwent pre-operative image segmentation and 3D modeling of the prostatic capsule, index lesion, urethra, rectum, and neurovascular bundles based upon multi-parametric MRI data. Pre-treatment 3D planning models were designed including virtual 3D cryotherapy probes to predict and plan cryotherapy probe configuration needed to achieve confluent treatment volume. Treatment efficacy was measured with 6 month post-operative MRI, serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) at 3 and 6 months, and treatment zone biopsy results at 6 months. Outcomes from 3D planning were compared to outcomes from a series of 20 patients undergoing cPGA using traditional 2D planning techniques. RESULTS:Forty men underwent cPGA. The median age of the cohort undergoing 3D treatment planning was 64.8 years with a median pretreatment PSA of 6.97 ng/mL. The Gleason grade group (GGG) of treated index lesions in this cohort included 1 (5%) GGG1, 11 (55%) GGG2, 7 (35%) GGG3, and 1 (5%) GGG4. Two (10%) of these treatments were post-radiation salvage therapies. The 2D treatment cohort included 20 men with a median age of 68.5 yrs., median pretreatment PSA of 6.76 ng/mL. The Gleason grade group (GGG) of treated index lesions in this cohort included 3 (15%) GGG1, 8 (40%) GGG2, 8 (40%) GGG3, 1 (5%) GGG4. Two (10%) of these treatments were post-radiation salvage therapies. 3D planning predicted the same number of cryoprobes for each group, however a greater number of cryoprobes was used in the procedure for the prospective 3D group as compared to that with 2D planning (4.10 ± 1.37 and 3.25 ± 0.44 respectively, p = 0.01). At 6 months post cPGA, the median PSA was 1.68 ng/mL and 2.38 ng/mL in the 3D and 2D cohorts respectively, with a larger decrease noted in the 3D cohort (75.9% reduction noted in 3D cohort and 64.8% reduction 2D cohort, p 0.48). In-field disease detection was 1/14 (7.1%) on surveillance biopsy in the 3D cohort and 3/14 (21.4%) in the 2D cohort, p = 0.056) In the 3D cohort, 6 month biopsy was not performed in 4 patients (20%) due to undetectable PSA, negative MRI, and negative MRI Axumin PET. For the group with traditional 2D planning, treatment zone biopsy was positive in 3/14 (21.4%) of the patients, p = 0.056. CONCLUSIONS:3D prostate cancer models derived from mpMRI data provide novel guidance for planning confluent treatment volumes for cPGA and predicted a greater number of treatment probes than traditional 2D planning methods. This study prompts further investigation into the use of 3D treatment planning techniques as the increase of partial gland ablation treatment protocols develop.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:In 2019, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services enforced regulation from the Affordable Care Act, requiring all U.S. hospitals to publish standard hospital charges annually. This study assesses top U.S academic hospitals' chargemasters for selected advanced diagnostic imaging services and the usability of publicly available information to allow consumers to determine out-of-pocket costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Publicly available chargemasters and associated websites for the top 20 ranked hospitals in U.S. News and World Report were assessed for several features including: file format, inclusion of CPT codes, disclaimers on charges versus costs and professional fees, and tools allowing determination of actual out-of-pocket costs for selected advanced diagnostic imaging examinations. RESULTS:All hospitals had publicly available chargemasters, 90% of which were in Microsoft Excel format. Ten percent of chargemasters included CPT codes. All chargemaster websites had disclaimers regarding differences between charges versus patient costs; 20% had disclaimers regarding professional fees. 20% of hospitals provided out-of-pocket costs for uninsured patients or tools allowing out-of-pocket cost determination. Median (range) MR exam charges were: brain with and without contrast: $5375 ($834-$13,857), noncontrast knee: $3402 (4530-$6924); noncontrast lumbar spine: $ 3449 ($473-$7367). Median (range) CT exam charges were: noncontrast head: $1923 ($165-$4974), noncontrast chest: $1947 ($282-$2991); contrast abdomen/pelvis: $4307 ($486-$11,726). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While all top-ranked hospitals had publicly available chargemasters, they rarely provided transparent information to allow patients to determine out-of-pocket costs for advanced diagnostic imaging services.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To identify the frequency, source, and management impact of discrepancies between the initial radiology report and expert reinterpretation occurring in the context of a hepatobiliary multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB). METHODS:This retrospective study included 974 consecutive patients discussed at a weekly MTB at a large tertiary care academic medical center over a 2-year period. A single radiologist with dedicated hepatobiliary imaging expertise attended all conferences to review and discuss the relevant liver imaging and rated the concordance between original and re-reads based on RADPEER scoring criteria. Impact on management was based on the conference discussion and reflected changes in follow-up imaging, recommendations for biopsy/surgery, or liver transplant eligibility. RESULTS:Image reinterpretation was discordant with the initial report in 19.9% (194/974) of cases (59.8%, 34.5%, 5.7% RADPEER 2/3/4 discrepancies, respectively). A change in LI-RADS category occurred in 59.8% of discrepancies. Most common causes of discordance included re-classification of a lesion as benign rather than malignant (16.0%) and missed tumor recurrence (13.9%). Impact on management occurred in 99.0% of discordant cases and included loco-regional therapy instead of follow-up imaging (19.1%), follow-up imaging instead of treatment (17.5%), and avoidance of biopsy (12.4%). 11.3% received OPTN exception scores due to the revised interpretation, and 8.8% were excluded from listing for orthotopic liver transplant. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Even in a sub-specialized abdominal imaging academic practice, expert radiologist review in the MTB setting identified discordant interpretations and impacted management in a substantial fraction of patients, potentially impacting transplant allocation. The findings may impact how abdominal imaging sections best staff advanced MTBs.

Editor's Note.-Articles in the RadioGraphics Update section provide current knowledge to supplement or update information found in full-length articles previously published in RadioGraphics. Authors of the previously published article provide a brief synopsis that emphasizes important new information such as technological advances, revised imaging protocols, new clinical guidelines involving imaging, or updated classification schemes. Articles in this section are published solely online and are linked to the original article.