Faculty Bibliography

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.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Occupational "horizontal segregation," defined as disparity in the distribution of responsibilities between genders, could discourage women from seeking careers in radiology, as well as impact women within radiology in terms of compensation, promotion, and career advancement. We aimed to explore the existence of horizontal workplace segregation in radiology, as potentially manifested as intergender differences in the distribution of clinical work effort among imaging modalities for radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Medicare-participating general radiologists, neuroradiologists, abdominal, cardiothoracic, and musculoskeletal radiologists were identified from the 2016 Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Work effort in radiography, ultrasound, CT, and MRI was stratified by gender. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS:22,445 radiologists were included (19.0% female; 19.6% in academic practices). At univariable analysis, female (vs. male) generalists had lower work effort in MRI (10.2% vs. 13.2%) (p < 0.001); abdominal radiologists had higher work effort in ultrasound (27.1% vs. 21.9%), with lower work effort in CT (53.7%. vs. 56.0%) and MRI (8.1%. vs. 9.4%) (p < 0.001); and musculoskeletal radiologists had higher work effort in radiography (41.6% vs. 34.8%) and less in MRI (44.8% vs. 49.6%) (p = 0.007). In multivariable analyses, female gender was independently associated with lower work effort in advanced imaging (CT and MRI) for generalists (coefficient, -0.020; p < 0.001), abdominal radiologists (coefficient, -0.042; p < 0.001), and neuroradiologists (coefficient -0.010; p = 0.035). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Horizontal occupational segregation exists in radiology with female radiologists devoting lower work effort to advanced imaging modalities. Further investigation is warranted to better understand the sources and downstream implications of such variation.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The head-computed tomography (CT) exam code was recently identified by policy makers as having a potentially overvalued resource value units (RVU). A critical aspect in determining RVUs is the complexity of patients undergoing the service. This study evaluated the complexity of patients undergoing head-CT. METHODS:The 2017 Medicare PSPS Master File was used to identify the most common site for performing head-CT examinations. Given the most common location, the 5% Research Identifiable File, was then used to evaluate complexity of patients undergoing head CT on the same day as an emergency department (ED) visit based on the Evaluation & Management (E&M) "level" of these visits (1-least complex to 5-most complex patient) and the ICD-10 diagnosis coding associated with the billed head CT claims. RESULTS:56.1% of head CT examinations were performed in the ED. Seventy percent of noncontrast exams performed in the ED were ordered in the most complex patient encounters (level 5 E&M visits). The most common ICD-10 code for head-CT without intravenous contrast billed with a level 5 E&M visit was "dizziness and giddiness," and for head-CT without and with intravenous contrast was "headache." CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Head-CT is not only most frequently ordered in the ED, but also during the most complex ED visits, suggesting that the ICD-10 codes associated with such exams do not appropriately reflects patient complexity. The valuation process should also consider the complexity of associated billed patient encounters, as indicated by E&M visit levels.

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:The aim of this study was to assess recent trends in US radiology practice consolidation. METHODS:Radiologist practice characteristics were obtained from the Medicare Physician Compare database for 2014 and 2018. Radiologists were classified on the basis of their largest identifiable practice affiliations. Single-specialty radiology practices were identified using practice names. Temporal trends in practice sizes were assessed. RESULTS:At the individual radiologist level from 2014 to 2018, the fraction of all radiologists in groups with 1 or 2 members declined from 3.2% to 2.1%, 3 to 9 members from 10.2% to 6.7%, 10 to 24 members from 18.2% to 14.1%, 25 to 49 members from 16.6% to 15.1%, and 50 to 99 members from 13.3% to 11.5%. In contrast, the fraction in groups with 100 to 499 members increased from 15.7% to 21.8% and with ≥500 members from 22.9% to 28.7%. At the practice level, the fraction of all radiologists' practices with 1 or 2 members decreased from 26.9% to 22.8%, whereas the fraction with 100 to 499 members increased from 7.6% to 10.2% and with ≥500 members from 2.5% to 4.1%. Similar shifts were present for single-specialty radiology practices and all geographic regions nationally. The 30,492 radiologists identified in 2014 were affiliated with 4,908 group practices, including 2,812 single-specialty practices. In comparison, the 32,096 radiologists identified in 2018 were affiliated with 4,193 group practices (a 14.6% decline), including 2,216 single-specialty practices (a 21.2% decline). CONCLUSIONS:In very recent years, the US radiologist workforce has consolidated, leading to increased practice sizes and a substantial decline in the number of distinct practices, disproportionately affecting single-specialty radiology practices. The impact of this consolidation on cost, quality, and patient access merits further attention.

The increasing age of the US population is increasing the demand for healthcare services for elderly patients. However, elderly patients, particularly those over the age of 75, may encounter unique challenges when seeking healthcare services, including radiological imaging. Radiology practices need to recognize the needs of this cohort and develop strategies to provide elderly patients with compassionate, high quality care. In this article, we highlight obstacles that elderly patients may face in undergoing imaging examinations, and approaches that radiology practices may take in addressing these.

CT technologists, like radiologists, are at risk of increased stress and burnout due to ever increasing clinical and workload demands. To mitigate these issues, radiology facilities need to be prepared to actively address and resolve issues that impact the technologist satisfaction. At our institution, a Process Improvement Committee was formed to identify and alleviate workplace stressors faced by CT technologists. As a result of the initiative, our CT department has evolved into a technologist-driven department in which experienced and effective technologists play a large role in fostering efficient and patient-centered care, while feeling empowered to function as leaders in their work environment. In this article, a senior CT technologist provides a first-hand account of the process changes from the technologist's perspective, focusing on strategies for establishing a supportive system that allows technologists to thrive in providing patient-centered care even in the busiest of clinical contexts.

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.

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.