Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To explore the current state of teleradiology practice, defined as the interpretation of imaging examinations at a different facility from where the examination was performed. METHODS:A national survey addressing radiologists' habits, attitudes, and perceptions regarding teleradiology was distributed by e-mail to a random sample of ACR members in early 2019. RESULTS:Among 731 of 936 respondents who indicated a non-teleradiologist primary work setting, 85.6% reported performing teleradiology within the past 10 years and 25.4% reported that teleradiology represents a majority of their annual imaging volumes; 84.4% performed teleradiology for internal examinations and 45.7% for external examinations; 46.2% performed teleradiology for rural areas and 37.2% for critical access hospitals; 91.3% performed teleradiology during weekday normal business hours and 44.5% to 79.6% over evening, overnight, and weekend hours. In all, 76.9% to 86.2% perceived value from teleradiology for geographic, after-hours, and multispecialty coverage, as well as reduced interpretation turnaround times. The most common challenges for teleradiology were electronic health record access (62.8%), quality assurance (53.8%), and technologist proximity (48.4%). The strategy most commonly considered useful for improving teleradiology was technical interpretation standards (33.3%). Radiologists in smaller practices were less likely to perform teleradiology or performed teleradiology for lower fractions of work, were less likely to experience coverage advantages of teleradiology, and reported larger implementation challenges, particularly relating to electronic health records and prior examination access. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite historic concerns, teleradiology is widespread throughout modern radiology practice, helping practices achieve geographic, after-hours, and multispecialty coverage; reducing turnaround times; and expanding underserved access. Nonetheless, quality assurance of offsite examinations remains necessary. IT integration solutions could help smaller practices achieve teleradiology's benefits.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Medicare established its Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting Program(HOQRP) to promote and incentivize quality care and appropriate utilization in the hospital outpatient setting. The program includes "imaging efficiency" metrics evaluating appropriate utilization of imaging examinations. Our purpose was to evaluate the longitudinal performance of the nation's hospitals on the HOQPR's imaging efficiency metrics. METHODS:Data were obtained from CMS Hospital Compare for hospitals participating in the Medicare HOQRP during both initial (January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011) and follow-up (July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016) periods. The six reported imaging efficiency metrics were: MRI lumbar spine for low back pain, mammography follow-up rates, abdomen and chest CT double scans(imaging with and without intravenous contrast), cardiac imaging for preoperative risk assessment for low-risk surgery, and simultaneous use of brain and sinus CT. Differences in imaging efficiency metrics were calculated using fixed effects linear regression models. RESULTS:Baseline and follow-up data were available for 3,960 hospitals. Median changes were: MRI lumbar spine for low back pain: +3.6% (range: -27.9% to +31.4%; P < .001); mammography follow-up: -0.3% (range: -69.5% to +62.6%; P = .03); double scan abdomen CT: -1.9% (range: -73.5% to +32.3%; P < .001); double scan chest CT: -0.4% (range: -73.2% to +28.0%; P < .001); preoperative cardiac imaging: -0.7% (range: -10.0% to +9.9%; P < .001); simultaneous brain and sinus CT: -0.9% (range: -11.8% to +7.8%; P < .001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Medicare's nationwide hospital outpatient imaging efficiency reporting initiative was associating with worse performance in lumbar spine MRI utilization and small improvements in double CT scans. Because quality metrics are increasingly imposed on health care providers, health service researchers will need to rigorously evaluate their effectiveness before and during early implementation.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to examine changing characteristics of utilization and potential disparities in US emergency department (ED) patients undergoing CT of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) for suspected urolithiasis. METHODS:A retrospective study was conducted among all patients from 2006 to 2015 with a primary diagnosis of suspected urolithiasis within the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, the largest publicly available all-payer ED database in the United States. The annual numbers of ED visits for suspected urolithiasis and associated CTAP examinations per visit were determined. The compound annual growth rate for CTAP was calculated. Using multivariate logistic regression analyses, patient demographics and payer and hospital characteristics were evaluated as potential independent predictors of utilization. RESULTS:Nationwide, the number of ED visits per year for suspected urolithiasis increased from 1,057,119 in 2006 to 1,246,041 in 2014 (relative +17.9%), while the annual use of CTAP increased from 24.6% to 49.4% per visit (relative +100.8%; CAGR +8.0%). Multivariate analysis showed higher CTAP use associated with higher patient household income ZIP code quartile (odds ratio [OR] for wealthiest/poorest, 1.48), private payer (ORs, 1.21 vs Medicare and 1.22 vs Medicaid), Northeast geographic region (ORs, 5.07 vs Midwest, 4.16 vs West, and 1.77 vs South), hospital urban status (OR, 1.42), and nonteaching hospitals (OR, 1.20) (P < .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS:The relative use of CTAP in ED patients presenting with suspected urolithiasis doubled between 2006 and 2014 and showed marked geographic variation. Among ED patients with suspected urolithiasis, CTAP was more frequent in patients from higher household income ZIP codes, with private insurance, in the Northeast, and at urban and nonteaching hospitals.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate whole-lesion 3D-histogram apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics for assessment of pancreatic malignancy. METHODS:Forty-two pancreatic malignancies (36 pancreatic adenocarcinoma [PDAC], 6 pancreatic neuroendocrine [PanNET]) underwent abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with diffusion-weighted imaging before endoscopic ultrasound biopsy or surgical resection. Two radiologists independently placed 3D volumes of interest to derive whole-lesion histogram ADC metrics. Mann-Whitney tests and receiver operating characteristic analyses were used to assess metrics' diagnostic performance for lesion histology, T-stage, N-stage, and grade. RESULTS:), for reader 1 a threshold <1.17 achieved sensitivity 87% and specificity 67%, and for reader 2 a threshold <1.04 achieved sensitivity 87% and specificity 83%. No metric was associated with T-stage (P > .195) or grade (P > .215). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:outperformed standard mean for lesion histology and nodal status, supporting the role of histogram analysis.

Multiparametric (mp) prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is playing an increasingly prominent role in the diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected prostate cancer. Performing mpMRI before biopsy offers several advantages including biopsy avoidance under certain clinical circumstances and targeting biopsy of suspicious lesions to enable the correct diagnosis. The success of the technique is heavily dependent on high-quality image acquisition, interpretation, and report communication, all areas addressed by previous versions of the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) recommendations. Numerous studies have validated the approach, but the widespread adoption of PI-RADS version 2 has also highlighted inconsistencies and limitations, particularly relating to interobserver variability for evaluation of the transition zone. These limitations are addressed in the recently released version 2.1. In this article, we highlight the key changes proposed in PI-RADS v2.1 and explore the background reasoning and evidence for the recommendations.

BACKGROUND:Evaluation of prostate MRI relies on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), commonly distorted by susceptibility artifacts, thereby creating a need for approaches to correct such distortion. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To compare geometric distortion on prostate MRI between standard DWI and a geometric distortion correction method for DWI described as static distortion correction DWI (SDC DWI). STUDY TYPE/METHODS:Retrospective case study. POPULATION/METHODS:Thirty patients (ages 31-81 years) undergoing prostate MRI. SEQUENCE/UNASSIGNED:-field map to estimate geometric distortions. ASSESSMENT/RESULTS:WI) as an anatomic standard. Pixel shifts and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were compared between prostate contours applied to the SDC DWI and standard DWI sequences. Detailed characterization of the impact of SDC DWI was performed in three representative patients. STATISTICAL TESTS/UNASSIGNED:One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, Spearman correlation test, and Bland-Altman plots were calculated. RESULTS:= 0.21). DATA CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:SDC DWI appears to correct for susceptibility-related pixel shifts in the prostate compared with standard DWI, which may have value for assessing prostate lesions obscured by geometric warping. Level of Evidence 4 Technical Efficacy Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to assess clinical practice characteristics of radiologists on the basis of American Board of Radiology (ABR) interventional radiology (IR) certification status. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Medicare-participating radiologists were linked with ABR diplomates using the ABR's public search engine. Radiologists with an interventional radiology/diagnostic radiology (IR/DR) certificate (offered since 2017) were deemed currently IR-certified (n = 2840), and those assigned a vascular and interventional radiology subspecialty certificate (now defunct by the ABR) were deemed previously IR-certified (n = 900). Physician characteristics were obtained from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data. RESULTS. Overall, the mean percentage work effort in IR was higher for radiologists currently IR-certified than it was for radiologists who were previously IR-certified (65.9% vs 30.6%). Although 41.2% of currently IR-certified diplomates had more than 90% IR work effort, 35.7% had 50% or less IR work effort. Radiologists with current IR certification versus those with previous IR certification were more likely to be in an academic practice (25.1% vs 8.4%), a larger practice (in a practice with ≥ 100 members, 41.2% vs 22.4%), and earlier career stages (≤ 20 years in practice, 46.5% vs 0.6%). Of the 10 services most commonly billed by currently versus previously IR-certified radiologists, two and zero, respectively, were invasive procedures. Of identified CMS-participating radiologists with more than 50% IR effort, 27.2% (727/2670) were neither previously nor currently IR-certified. CONCLUSION. Although radiologists maintaining IR certification have higher IR work effort than those whose IR certification has lapsed, they are heterogeneous with overall sizable noninvasive diagnostic imaging practices. Approximately one-quarter of radiologists with predominant IR practices have never obtained IR certification. Because current IR/DR maintenance of certification testing exclusively addresses IR practice, attention is warranted to ensure certification is relevant to all IR diplomates.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:We update the prior AUA SOP for MRI of the prostate and summarize the available data about the technique and clinical use of MRI in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. This updated SOP provides practical recommendations for MRI use in the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and surveillance of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:A panel of clinicians from the AUA and SAR with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and technique MRI for this disease. When adequate studies were available for analysis, recommendations were made on the basis of data and when adequate studies were not available, recommendations were made on the basis of expert consensus. RESULTS:Prostate MRI should be performed according to technical specifications, technique standards, and interpreted according to standard reporting. Data support the use of MRI in men with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. Sufficient data now also exist to support the recommendation of MRI prior to biopsy for all men, without previous history of biopsy, under consideration for prostate biopsy. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend MRI for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS:Utility of prostate MRI in the risk stratification, diagnosis, and treatment pathway of men with prostate cancer is expanding. When a quality prostate MRI is obtained, current evidence now supports its use in men at risk of harboring prostate cancer prior to their first biopsy, as well as in men with a rising PSA following an initial negative standard prostate biopsy procedure.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Insight into the status of neuroradiology subspecialty certification across the United States could help to understand neuroradiologists' perceived value of subspecialty certification as well as guide efforts to optimize pathways for broader voluntary certification participation. Our aim was to assess board certification characteristics of practicing US neuroradiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:The American Board of Radiology public search engine was used to link Medicare-participating radiologists with American Board of Radiology diplomates. Among linked diplomates, 4670 neuroradiologists were identified on the basis of 3 criteria: current or prior neuroradiology subspecialty certification or currently >50% clinical work effort in neuroradiology based on work relative value unit-weighted national Medicare claims ("majority-practice neuroradiologists"). Subspecialty certification status was studied in each group, using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data to identify additional physician characteristics. RESULTS:Of 3769 included radiologists ever subspecialty certified, 84.1% are currently subspecialty certified. Of 1777/3769 radiologists ever subspecialty-certified and with lifetime primary certificates (ie, nonmandated Maintenance of Certification), only 66.6% are currently subspecialty certified. Of 3341 included majority-practice neuroradiologists, 73.0% were ever subspecialty certified; of these, 89.1% are currently subspecialty certified. Of 3341 majority-practice neuroradiologists, the fraction currently subspecialty certified was higher for those in academic (81.3%) versus nonacademic (58.2%) practices, larger versus smaller practices (72.1% for those in ≥100 versus 36.1% for <10-member practices), US regions other than the West (64.1%-70.6% versus 56.5%), fewer years in practice (77.5% for 11-20 years versus 31.3% for >50 years), and time-limited (73.5%) versus lifetime (54.9%) primary certificates. CONCLUSIONS:More than one-quarter of majority-practice neuroradiologists never obtained neuroradiology subspecialty certification. Even when initially obtained, that certification is commonly not maintained, particularly by lifetime primary certificate diplomates and those in nonacademic and smaller practices. Further investigation is warranted to better understand neuroradiologists' decisions regarding attaining and maintaining subspecialty certification.

OBJECTIVE. Physicians across specialties have expressed concerns about Maintenance of Certification (MOC) programs of American Board of Medical Specialties member boards, calling for research about MOC acceptance, adoption, and value. The purpose of this study was to characterize diagnostic radiologists' participation in the American Board of Radiology (ABR) MOC program, the framework for its new Online Longitudinal Assessment program. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Practicing U.S. radiologists were identified from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Corresponding ABR diplomate certification information was obtained through the ABR public search engine. Focused on diagnostic radiologists (defined as those whose only ABR certificate is in diagnostic radiology), MOC participation rates were calculated across various physician characteristics for those whose participation was mandated by the ABR (time-limited certificates) and for those whose participation was not mandated (lifetime certificates). RESULTS. Among 20,354 included diagnostic radiologists, 11,479 (56.4%) participated in MOC. Participation rates were 99.6% (10,058/10,099) among those whose MOC was ABR mandated and 13.9% (1421/10,225) among those whose participation was not mandated (p < 0.001). The rates of nonmandated participation were higher (all p < 0.001) for academic than for non-academic radiologists (28.0% vs 11.3%), subspecialists than for generalists (17.0% vs 11.5%), and those in larger practice groups (< 10 members, 5.0%; 10-49 members, 12.6%; ≥ 50 members, 20.7%). State-level rates of nonmandated participation varied from 0.0% (South Dakota, Montana) to 32.6% (Virginia) and positively correlated with state population density (r = 0.315). CONCLUSION. Although diagnostic radiologists with time-limited certificates nearly universally participate in MOC, those with lifetime certificates (particularly general radiologists and those in smaller and nonacademic practices) participate infrequently. Low rates of nonmandated participation may reflect diplomate dissatisfaction or negative perceptions about MOC.