Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The objective of our study was to study patterns of services rendered by U.S. physicians who self-identify as nuclear medicine (NM) specialists. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Recent Medicare physician claims and demographic files were obtained and linked. NM specialists were defined as physicians self-identifying NM as their primary specialty on claims or as any of their specialties during enrollment. Using other self-identified specialties, we classified physicians as nuclear radiologists, nuclear cardiologists, exclusively NM physicians, or Others. Our primary outcome measure was the percentage of NM effort (in work relative value units [WRVUs]) per physician per specialty group. Secondary outcome measures included physician sociodemographic parameters and most common uniquely rendered services. RESULTS:Nationally, 1583 physicians self-identified as NM specialists during the calendar years 2012 through 2015. The distribution of WRVUs attributed to NM varied widely by specialty group; most nuclear radiologists and nuclear cardiologists devoted 10% or less of their effort to NM services whereas most NM physicians devoted 90% or more of their effort to NM services. NM specialists were most commonly nuclear radiologists (52.2%) and men (80.3%) and practiced in urban (98.4%) and nonacademic settings (62.9%). NM physicians interpreted more general NM studies, nuclear radiologists interpreted more cross-sectional imaging studies, and nuclear cardiologists interpreted mostly nuclear cardiology studies, with a majority of their overall work attributed to clinical evaluation and management (E/M). E/M services accounted for less than 2% of WRVUs for both nuclear radiologists and NM physicians. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The work patterns of U.S. NM specialists is highly variable. Most NM physicians practice 90% or more NM, whereas most nuclear radiologists and nuclear cardiologists practice 10% or less NM. Commonly performed services vary considerably by specialty group.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:While MRI-Ultrasound Fusion-targeted biopsy (MRF-TB) allows for improved detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), concerning numbers of clinically significant disease are still missed. We hypothesize that a number of these are due to the learning curve associated with MRF-TB. We report results of repeat MRF-TB in men with continued suspicion for cancer and the institutional learning curve in detection of csPCa over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Analysis of 1813 prostate biopsies in a prospectively acquired cohort of men presenting for prostate biopsy over a 4-year period. All men were offered pre-biopsy MRI and assigned a maximum Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS) score. Biopsy outcomes of men with suspicious region of interest (ROI) were compared. The relationship between time and csPCa detection was analyzed. RESULTS:csPCa detection rate increased 26% over time in men with PI-RADS 4 and 5 (4/5) ROI. On repeat MRF-TB in men with continued suspicion for cancer, 53% of men with PI-RADS 4/5 ROI demonstrated clinically significant discordance from initial MRF-TB, compared to only 23% of men with PI-RADS 1/2 ROI. Significantly less csPCa were missed or under-graded in the most recent biopsies as compared to the earliest biopsies. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:High upgrade rates on repeat MRF-TB and increasing cancer detection rate over time demonstrate the significant learning curve associated with MRF-TB. Men with low risk or negative biopsies with persistent concerning ROI should be promptly re-biopsied. Improved targeting accuracy with operator experience can help decrease the number of missed csPCa.

The cost of providing healthcare in the United States continues to rise. The Affordable Care Act created systems to test value-based alternative payments models. Traditionally, procedure-based specialists such as neurointerventionalists have largely functioned in, and are thus familiar with, the traditional Fee for Service system. Administrative charge data would suggest that neurointerventional surgery is an expensive specialty. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act consolidated pre-existing federal performance programs in the Merit-based Incentive Payments System (MIPS), including a performance category called 'cost'. Understanding cost as a dimension that contributes to the value of care delivered is critical for succeeding in MIPS and offers a meaningful route for favorably bending the cost curve.

Purpose To explore subspecialty workforce considerations surrounding invasive procedures performed by radiologists. Materials and Methods The 2015 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was used to identify all invasive procedures (Current Procedural Terminology code range, 10000-69999) billed by radiologists for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Radiologists were categorized by subspecialty according to the majority of their billable work-relative value units (wRVUs). Those without a single subspecialty majority work effort were deemed generalists. Procedures were categorized into three tiers of complexity (high, ≥4.0 wRVUs; mid, 1.6-3.9 wRVUs; low, ≤1.5 wRVUs). Total and tiered generalist versus subspecialist workforce composition was assessed. Results Just 25 unique services comprised more than 75% of invasive procedures performed by radiologists. Of radiologists who performed procedures, 57.5% were generalists, 15.8% were interventionalists, and 26.8% were other subspecialists. Of the radiologists who performed low-, mid-, and high-complexity procedures, generalists accounted for 46.3%, 30.9%, and 23.1%, respectively; interventionalists accounted for 35.4%, 30.9%, and 75.2%, respectively; and other subspecialists accounted for 18.3%, 14.6%, and 1.7%, respectively. Generalists were the dominant providers of six of the top 10 low-complexity and seven of the top 10 midcomplexity procedures. Interventionalists were the dominant providers of all top 10 high-complexity procedures. Nationally, over twice as many U.S. counties had local access to generalists (869 counties) for invasive procedures versus interventionalists (347 counties) or other subspecialists (380 counties). Conclusion Among radiologists, generalists perform far more procedures in more geographic locations and are more likely to serve patients with less complex service needs than are interventionalists or other subspecialists. Practices and professional societies must remain vigilant to ensure that the subspecialty evolution in radiology does not exacerbate patient access disparities.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess changing Medicare volumes of, and coverage for, secondary interpretations of diagnostic imaging examinations stratified by modality and body region service families. METHODS:Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files for 2003 to 2016 were obtained. Aggregate Part B fee-for-service claims frequency and payment data were isolated for noninvasive diagnostic imaging and stratified by service family. Using published Medicare payment rules, secondary interpretations were identified as studies billed using both modifiers 26 and 77. Billed and denied services volumes were calculated and compared across modality and body region service families. RESULTS:Seven service families showed a compound annual growth rate from 2003 to 2016 of >20% (an additional 12 service families, >10% growth). For select high-volume service families (chest radiography and fluoroscopy [R&F], brain MRI, and abdominal and pelvic CT), relative growth in billed secondary interpretation services exceeded that for primary interpretations. In 2016, body region and modality service families with the most billed secondary interpretations were chest R&F (674,124), abdominal and pelvic R&F (65,566), brain CT (45,642), extremity R&F (34,560), abdominal and pelvic CT (14,269), and chest CT (10,914). All service families had secondary interpretation denial rates <25% in 2016 (15 service families, <10%). CONCLUSIONS:Among Medicare beneficiaries, the frequency of billed secondary interpretation services for diagnostic imaging services increased from 2003 to 2016 across a broad range of modalities and body regions, often dramatically. Payment denial rates were consistently low across service families. As CMS continues to seek input on appropriate coverage for these services, these findings suggest increasing clinical demand for and payer acceptance of these value-added radiologist services.

BACKGROUND:The number of prostate biopsy cores that need to be taken from each magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) region of interest (ROI) to optimize sampling while minimizing overdetection has not yet been clearly elucidated. OBJECTIVE:To characterize the incremental value of additional MRI-ultrasound (US) fusion targeted biopsy cores in defining the optimal number when planning biopsy and to predict men who might benefit from more than two targeted cores. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of MRI-US fusion targeted biopsies between 2015 and 2017. INTERVENTION/METHODS:MRI-US fusion targeted biopsy in which four biopsy cores were directed to each MRI-targeted ROI. OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS/UNASSIGNED:The MRI-targeted cores representing the first highest Gleason core (FHGC) and first clinically significant cancer core (FCSC; GS≥3+4) were evaluated. We analyzed the frequency of FHGC and FCSC among cores 1-4 and created a logistic regression model to predict FHGC >2. The number of unnecessary cores avoided and the number of malignancies missed for each Gleason grade were calculated via clinical utility analysis. The level of agreement between biopsy and prostatectomy Gleason scores was evaluated using Cohen's κ. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:A total of 479 patients underwent fusion targeted biopsy with four individual cores, with 615 ROIs biopsied. Among those, FHGC was core 1 in 477 (76.8%), core 2 in 69 (11.6%), core 3 in 48 (7.6%), and core 4 in 24 men (4.0%) with any cancer. Among men with clinically significant cancer, FCSC was core 1 in 191 (77.8%), core 2 in 26 (11.1%), core 3 in 17 (6.2%), and core 4 in 11 samples (4.9%). In comparison to men with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 5, patients were significantly less likely to have FHGS >2 if they had PI-RADS 4 (odds ratio [OR] 0.287; p=0.006), PI-RADS 3 (OR 0.284; p=0.006), or PI-RADS 2 (OR 0.343; p=0.015). Study limitations include a single-institution experience and the retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS:Cores 1-2 represented FHGC 88.4% and FCSC 88.9% of the time. A PI-RADS score of 5 independently predicted FHGC >2. Although the majority of cancers in our study were appropriately characterized in the first two biopsy cores, there remains a proportion of men who would benefit from additional cores. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:In men who undergo magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy, the first two biopsy cores diagnose the majority of clinically significant cancers. However, there remains a proportion of men who would benefit from additional cores.

Radiologists are facing increasing workplace pressures that can lead to decreased job satisfaction and burnout. The increasing complexity and volumes of cases and increasing numbers of noninterpretive tasks, compounded by decreasing reimbursements and visibility in this digital age, have created a critical need to develop innovations that optimize workflow, increase radiologist engagement, and enhance patient care. During their workday, radiologists often must navigate through multiple software programs, including picture archiving and communication systems, electronic health records, and dictation software. Furthermore, additional noninterpretive duties can interrupt image review. Fragmented data and frequent task switching can create frustration and potentially affect patient care. Despite the current successful technological advancements across industries, radiology software systems often remain nonintegrated and not leveraged to their full potential. Each step of the imaging process can be enhanced with use of information technology (IT). Successful implementation of IT innovations requires a collaborative team of radiologists, IT professionals, and software programmers to develop customized solutions. This article includes a discussion of how IT tools are used to improve many steps of the imaging process, including examination protocoling, image interpretation, reporting, communication, and radiologist feedback. ^©RSNA, 2018.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To conduct a meta-analysis of studies investigating discrepancy rates and clinical impact of imaging secondary interpretations and to identify factors influencing these rates. METHODS:EMBASE and PubMed databases were searched for original research investigations reporting discrepancy rates for secondary interpretations performed by radiologists for imaging examinations initially interpreted at other institutions. Two reviewers extracted study information and assessed study quality. Meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS:Twenty-nine studies representing a total of 12,676 imaging secondary interpretations met inclusion criteria; 19 of these studies provided data specifically for oncologic imaging examinations. Primary risks of bias included availability of initial interpretations, other clinical information, and reference standard before the secondary interpretation. The overall discrepancy rate of secondary interpretations compared with primary interpretations was 32.2%, including a 20.4% discrepancy rate for major findings. Secondary interpretations were management changing in 18.6% of cases. Among discrepant interpretations with an available reference standard, the secondary interpretation accuracy rate was 90.5%. The overall discrepancy rates by examination types were 28.3% for CT, 31.2% for MRI, 32.7% for oncologic imaging, 43.8% for body imaging, 39.9% for breast imaging, 34.0% for musculoskeletal imaging, 23.8% for neuroradiologic imaging, 35.5% for pediatric imaging, and 19.7% for trauma imaging. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Most widely studied in the context of oncology, imaging secondary interpretations commonly result in discrepant interpretations that are management changing and more accurate than initial interpretations. Policymakers should consider these findings as they consider the value of, and payment for, secondary imaging interpretations.