Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to assess the perceptions of radiologists and emergency medicine (EM) providers regarding the quality, value, and challenges associated with using outside imaging (i.e., images obtained at facilities other than their own institution). MATERIALS AND METHODS. We surveyed radiologists and EM providers at a large academic medical center regarding their perceptions of the availability and utility of outside imaging. RESULTS. Thirty-four of 101 radiologists (33.6%) and 38 of 197 EM providers (19.3%) responded. A total of 32.4% of radiologists and 55.3% of EM providers had confidence in the quality of images from outside community facilities; 20.6% and 44.7%, respectively, had confidence in the interpretations of radiologists from these outside facilities. Only 23.5% of radiologists and 5.3% of EM physicians were confident in their ability to efficiently access reports (for outside images, 47.1% and 5.3%). Very few radiologists and EM providers had accessed imaging reports from outside facilities through an available stand-alone portal. A total of 40.6% of radiologists thought that outside reports always or frequently reduced additional imaging recommendations (62.5% for outside images); 15.6% thought that reports changed interpretations of new examinations (37.5% for outside images); and 43.8% thought that reports increased confidence in interpretations of new examinations (75.0% for outside images). A total of 29.4% of EM providers thought that access to reports from outside facilities reduced repeat imaging (64.7% for outside images), 41.2% thought that they changed diagnostic or management plans (50.0% for outside images), and 50.0% thought they increased clinical confidence (67.6% for outside images). CONCLUSION. Radiologists and EM providers perceive high value in sharing images from outside facilities, despite quality concerns. Substantial challenges exist in accessing these images and reports from outside facilities, and providers are unlikely to do so using separate systems. However, even if information technology solutions for seamless image integration are adopted, providers' lack of confidence in outside studies may remain an important barrier.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess characteristics of radiologists' clinical practice patterns by career stage. METHODS:Radiologists' 2016 billed services were extracted from the Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Billed clinical work was weighted using work relative value units. Medical school graduation years were obtained from Medicare Physician Compare. Practice patterns were summarized by decades after residency. RESULTS:Among 28,463 included radiologists, 32.7% were ≤10 years postresidency, 29.3% 11-20 years, 25.0% 21-30 years, 10.5% 31-40 years, 2.4% 41-50 years, 0.1% ≥51 years. Billed clinical work (normalized to a mean of 1.00 among all radiologists) ranged 0.92-1.07 from 1 to 40 years, decreasing to 0.64 for 41-50 years and 0.43 for ≥51 years. Computed tomography represented 34.7%-38.6% of billed clinical work from 1 to 30 years, decreasing slightly to 31.5% for 31-40 years. Magnetic resonance imaging represented 13.9%-14.3% from 1 to 30 years, decreasing slightly to 11.2% for 31-40 years. Ultrasonography represented 6.2%-11.6% across career stages. Nuclear medicine increased steadily from 1.7% for ≤10 years to 7.0% for 41-50 years. Mammography represented 9.9%-12.9% from 1 to 50 years. Radiography/fluoroscopy represented 15.1%-29.8% from 1 to 50 years, but 65.9% for ≥51 years. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The national radiologist workforce declines abruptly by more than half approximately 30 years after residency. Radiologists still working at 31-40 years, however, contribute similar billed clinical work, both overall and across modalities, as earlier career radiologists. Strategies to retain later-career radiologists in the workforce could help the specialty meet growing clinical demands, mitigate burnout in earlier career colleagues, and expand robust patient access to both basic and advanced imaging services.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS:An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared ≥ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS:A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario.

The current diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer has resulted in overdiagnosis and consequent overtreatment as well as underdiagnosis and missed diagnoses in many men. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate has been identified as a test that could mitigate these diagnostic errors. The performance of mpMRI can vary depending on the population being studied, the execution of the MRI itself, the experience of the radiologist, whether additional biomarkers are considered and whether mpMRI-targeted biopsy is carried out alone or in addition to systematic biopsy. A number of challenges to implementation remain, such as ensuring high-quality execution and reporting of mpMRI and ensuring that this diagnostic pathway is cost-effective. Nevertheless, emerging clinical trial data support the adoption of this technology as part of the standard of care for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:CMS implemented Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) policies to cap points and remove "topped out" quality measures having extremely high national performance. We assess such policies' impact on quality measure reporting, focusing on diagnostic radiology. METHODS:Data regarding MIPS 2019 quality measures were extracted from the CMS Quality Benchmarks File and the Quality Payment Program Explore Measures search tool and summarized by collection type and specialty. RESULTS:Among 348 MIPS measure-and-collection-type combinations, 40.5% were topped out (56.6% of those with a benchmark) and 23.3% were capped. Among measures with a benchmark, the percent topped out varied (P < .001) by collection type: claims 82.7%, qualified registry 60.4%, electronic health record 11.6%. The percent capped was also greatest for claims measures (52.3%). Among 699 Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) measures, 63 had a benchmark, of which 44.4% were topped out. The percent of measures topped out also varied significantly (P < .001) by specialty, ranging from 0.0% (electrophysiology) to 95.0% (diagnostic radiology). Among 20 unique measure-and-collection-type combinations for diagnostic radiology, only one was not topped out, and 30.0% were capped. Among 20 radiology QCDR measures, 5 had a benchmark, of which 3 were topped out. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:CMS topped out measure scoring and removal policies disproportionately impact radiology, which has the highest topped out percentage among all specialties and only a single non-topped out measure. This asymmetry disproportionately impairs radiologists' MIPS flexibility and is anticipated to progress in ensuing years. Current CMS policies create a looming crisis for radiologists in MIPS. The high risk of an insufficient number of available quality measures creates an urgent need for new radiology measure development.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Communication and physician burn out are major issues within Radiology. This study is designed to determine the utilization and cost benefit of a hybrid computer/human communication tool to aid in relay of clinically important imaging findings. MATERIAL AND METHODS/METHODS:Analysis of the total number of tickets, (requests for assistance) placed, the type of ticket and the turn-around time was performed. Cost analysis of a hybrid computer/human communication tool over a one-year period was based on human costs as a multiple of the time to close the ticket. Additionally, we surveyed a cohort of radiologists to determine their use of and satisfaction with this system. RESULTS:14,911 tickets were placed in the 6-month period, of which 11,401 (76.4%) were requests to "Get the Referring clinician on the phone." The mean time to resolution (TTR) of these tickets was 35.3 (±17.4) minutes. Ninety percent (72/80) of radiologists reported being able to interpret a new imaging study instead of waiting to communicate results for the earlier study, compared to 50% previously. 87.5% of radiologists reported being able to read more cases after this system was introduced. The cost analysis showed a cost savings of up to $101.12 per ticket based on the length of time that the ticket took to close and the total number of placed tickets. CONCLUSIONS:A computer/human communication tool can be translated to significant time savings and potentially increasing productivity of radiologists. Additionally, the system may have a cost savings by freeing the radiologist from tracking down referring clinicians prior to communicating findings.

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.

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.