Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to investigate county-level geographic patterns of mammographic screening uptake throughout the United States and to determine the impact of rural versus urban settings on breast cancer screening uptake. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:This descriptive study used County Health Rankings (CHR) data to identify the percentage of Medicare enrollees 67-69 years old per county who had at least one mammogram in 2013 or 2012 (uptake). Uptake was matched with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Atlas of Rural and Small Town America categorizations along a rural-urban continuum scale from 1 to 9 based on county population size (large urban, population ≥ 20,000 people; small urban, < 20,000 people) and proximity to a metropolitan area. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS:In all, 2,243,294 Medicare beneficiaries were eligible for mammograms. National mean uptake per county was 60.5% (range, 26.0-86.0%). Uptake was significantly higher in metropolitan and large urban counties in 25 states and lower in only one. County-level mammographic uptake was moderately positively correlated with percentage of residents with some college education (r = 0.40, p < 0.001) and moderately negatively correlated with age-adjusted mortality (r = -0.41, p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that percentage of white and black residents and age-adjusted mortality rate were the strongest significant independent predictors of uptake. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Uptake of mammographic screening services in a Medicare population varies widely at the county level and is generally lowest in rural counties and urban counties with fewer than 20,000 people.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess trends in inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement and retrieval procedures in Medicare beneficiaries over the last two decades. METHODS:Using Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files from 1994 through 2015, we calculated utilization rates for IVC filter placement and retrieval procedures in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Services were stratified by provider specialty group and site of service. RESULTS:IVC filter placement rates increased from 1994 to 2008 (from 65.0 to 202.1 per 100,000 beneficiaries, compound annual growth rate [CAGR] +8.4%) and then decreased to 128.9 by 2015 (CAGR -6.2%). This decrease was observed across all specialty groups and sites of service. From 1994 to 2015, placement procedure market share increased for radiologists (from 45.1% to 62.7%) and cardiologists (from 2.5% to 6.7%) but decreased for surgeons (from 46.6% to 27.9%). Overall, procedures shifted slightly from the inpatient (from 94.5% to 86.5% of all procedures) to outpatient hospital (from 4.9% to 14.9%) settings. Between 2012 and 2015, retrieval rates increased from 12.0 to 17.7 (CAGR +13.9%). Retrievals as a percentage of placement procedures were similar across specialties in 2015 (range 13.0%-13.8%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite prior dramatic growth, the utilization of IVC filters in Medicare beneficiaries markedly declined over the last decade, likely relating to evolving views regarding efficacy and long-term safety. This decline was accompanied by several filter-related market shifts, including increasing placement by radiologists and cardiologists, increasing outpatient placement procedures, and increasing retrieval rates.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:As federal legislation increasingly influences health care delivery, the impact of election funding has grown. We aimed to characterize US radiologist federal political contributions over recent years. METHODS:After obtaining 2003 to 2016 finance data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), we extracted contribution data for all self-identified radiologists. Contributions were classified by recipient group and FEC-designated political party and then analyzed temporally and geographically, in aggregate, and by individual radiologist. RESULTS:Between 2003 and 2016, the FEC reported 35,408,584 political contributions. Of these, 36,474 (totaling $16,255,099) were from 7,515 unique self-identified radiologists. Total annual radiologist contributions ranged from $480,565 in 2005 to $1,867,120 in 2012. On average, 1,697 radiologists made political contributions each year (range 903 in 2005 to 2,496 in 2016). On average, contributing radiologists gave $2,163 ± $4,053 (range $10-$121,836) over this time, but amounts varied considerably by state (range $865 in Utah to $4,325 in Arkansas). Of all radiologist dollars, 76.3% were nonpartisan, with only 14.8% to Republicans, 8.5% to Democrats, and 0.4% to others. Most radiologist dollars went to political action committees (PACs) rather than candidates (74.6% versus 25.4%). Those PAC dollars were overwhelmingly (92.5%) directed to the Radiology Political Action Committee (RADPAC), which saw self-identified radiologist contributions grow from $351,251 in 2003 to $1,113,966 in 2016. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Radiologist federal political contributions have increased over 3-fold in recent years. That growth overwhelmingly represents contributions to RADPAC. Despite national political polarization, the overwhelming majority of radiologist political contributions are specialty-focused and nonpartisan.

Multiparametric MR imaging provides detailed anatomic assessment of the prostate as well as information that allows the detection and characterization of prostate cancer. To obtain high-quality MR imaging of the prostate, radiologists must understand sequence optimization to overcome commonly encountered technical challenges. This review discusses the techniques that are used in state-of-the-art MR imaging of the prostate, including imaging protocols, hardware considerations, and important aspects of patient preparation, with an emphasis on the recommendations provided in the prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2 guidelines.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate transgender patient care, gender inclusivity, and transgender health-related policies at breast imaging facilities across the United States. METHODS:A survey on breast imaging facilities' policies and practices regarding transgender care was distributed to the membership of the Society of Breast Imaging, consisting of approximately 2,500 breast radiologists across the United States. The survey was conducted by e-mail in January 2018. RESULTS:There were 144 survey respondents. Responses showed that 78.5% of facilities have gender-neutral patient bathrooms, 9.0% have a separate waiting area for transgender patients, and 76.4% do not have dominant pink hues in their facilities, although 54.2% have displays with female gender content. Also, 58.0% of intake forms do not ask patients to provide their gender identity, although 25.9% automatically populate with female phrases. Within the electronic health record, 32.9% lack a distinct place to record patients' preferred names and 54.9% lack a distinct place to record patients' gender pronouns. The majority (73.4%) do not have explicit policies related to the care of transgender patients. Only 14.7% of facilities offer lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender training. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our national survey demonstrates that many breast imaging facilities do not have structures in place to consistently use patients' preferred names and pronouns, nor provide inclusive environments for transgender patients. All breast imaging facilities should recognize the ways in which their practices may intensify discrimination, exclusivity, and stigma for transgender patients and should seek to improve their transgender health competencies and foster more inclusive environments.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess geographic variation in gender disparities in the US radiologist workforce. METHODS:Gender, location, and practice affiliation of all radiologists and gender of all nonradiologists were identified for all providers listed in the Medicare Physician Compare database. Variation in female representation among radiologists was summarized at state, county, and individual practice levels, and associations with a variety of county-level population characteristics were explored. RESULTS:Nationally, 23.1% (7,501 of 32,429) of all radiologists were women versus 46.6% (481,831 of 1,034,909) of Medicare-participating nonradiologists. At the state level, female representation among radiologists was overall highest in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions (Washington DC, 39.3%; Massachusetts, 34.3%; Maryland, 31.5%) and lowest in the West and Midwest (Wyoming, 9.0%; Montana, 10.7%; Idaho, 11.7%). At the county level, female representation varied from 0.0% to 100.0%, with weak positive correlations with county-level population (r = +0.39), median household income (r = +0.25), college education (r = +0.23), English nonproficiency (r = +0.21), mammography screening rates (r = +0.12), Democratic voting in the 2016 presidential election (r = +0.28), and weak negative correlation with county-level rural population percentage (r = -0.32). Among practices with ≥10 members, female representation varied greatly (0.0% to 100.0%). Female representation was higher among academic (32.3%) than nonacademic (20.6%) radiologists, and in states with higher female-to-male relative earnings (r = +0.556). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Compared with nonradiologists, women are underrepresented in the national radiologist workforce. This underrepresentation is highly variable at state, county, and practice levels and is partially explained by a variety of demographic, socioeconomic, and political factors. These insights could help inform and drive initiatives to reduce gender disparities and more actively engage women in the specialty.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To explore variation in downstream relative costs associated with ovarian cysts incidentally detected on ultrasound. METHODS:For 200 consecutive incidental ovarian cysts on ultrasound, ultrasound reports were classified in terms of presence of a radiologist recommendation for additional imaging. All downstream events (imaging, office visits, and surgery) associated with the cysts were identified from the electronic health record. Medical costs associated with these downstream events were estimated using national Medicare rates. Average cost per cyst was stratified by various factors; cost ratios were computed among subgroups. RESULTS:Average costs per cyst were 1.9 times greater in postmenopausal than premenopausal women. Relative to when follow-up imaging was neither recommended nor obtained, costs were 1.1 times greater when follow-up imaging was recommended but not obtained, 5.1 times greater when follow-up imaging was both recommended and obtained, and 8.1 times greater when follow-up imaging was obtained despite not being recommended. Costs were 2.5 times greater when the radiologist underrecommended follow-up compared with Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) guidelines for management of ovarian cysts, 3.0 times greater when the ordering physician overmanaged compared with the radiologist's recommendation, as well as 1.7 times and 3.8 times greater when the ordering physician undermanaged and overmanaged compared with SRU guidelines, respectively. Four ovarian neoplasms, although no ovarian malignancy, were diagnosed in the cohort. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Follow-up costs for incidental ovarian cysts are highly variable based on a range of factors. Radiologist recommendations may contribute to lower costs among patients receiving follow-up imaging. Such recommendations should reflect best practices and support the follow-up that will be of likely greatest value for patient care.

PURPOSE: To evaluate radiologist preferences regarding specific content that warrants inclusion in prostate MRI reports. METHODS: Sixty-one members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology responded to a 74-item survey regarding specific content warranted in prostate MRI reports, conducted in August 2016. RESULTS: General items deemed essential report content by >/= 50% of respondents were prostate volume (80%), extent of prostate hemorrhage (74%), TURP defects (69%), coil type (64%), BPH (61%), contrast dose (61%), contrast agent (59%), medications administered (59%), and magnet strength (54%). Details regarding lesion description deemed essential by >/= 50% were overall PI-RADS category (88%), DCE (+/-) (82%), subjective degree of diffusion restriction (72%), T2WI intensity (72%), T2WI margins (65%), T2WI shape (52%), DWI 1-5 score (50%), and T2WI 1-5 score (50%). Details deemed essential to include in the report Impression by >/= 50% of respondents were lymphadenopathy and metastases (100%), EPE (98%), SVI (98%), neurovascular bundle involvement (93%), index lesion location (93%), PI-RADS category of index lesion (82%), number of suspicious lesions (78%), significance of index lesion PI-RADS category (53%), and PI-RADS category of non-index lesions (52%). Preferred methods for lesion localization were slice/image number (68%), 3-part craniocaudal level (68%), zonal location (65%), anterior vs. posterior location (57%), and medial vs. lateral position (56%). Least preferred methods for localization were numeric sector from the PI-RADS sector map (8%), annotated screen capture (10%), and graphical schematic of PI-RADS sector map (11%). CONCLUSION: Radiologists generally deemed a high level of detail warranted in prostate MRI reports. The PI-RADS v2 sector map was disliked for lesion localization.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The present study aims to assess associations of Medicare beneficiary screening mammography rates with local mammography facility and radiologist availability. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Mammography screening rates for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries were obtained for US counties using the County Health Rankings data set. County-level certified mammography facility counts were obtained from the United States Food and Drug Administration. County-level mammogram-interpreting radiologist and breast imaging subspecialist counts were determined using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fee-for-service claims files. Spearman correlations and multivariable linear regressions were performed using counties' facility and radiologist counts, as well as counts normalized to counties' Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary volume and land area. RESULTS:Across 3035 included counties, average screening mammography rates were 60.5% ± 8.2% (range 26%-88%). Correlations between county-level screening rates and total mammography facilities, facilities per 100,000 square mile county area, total mammography-interpreting radiologists, and mammography-interpreting radiologists per 100,000 county-level Medicare beneficiaries were all weak (r = 0.22-0.26). Correlations between county-level screening rates and mammography rates per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, total breast imaging subspecialist radiologists, and breast imaging subspecialist radiologists per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries were all minimal (r = 0.06-0.16). Multivariable analyses overall demonstrated radiologist supply to have a stronger independent effect than facility supply, although effect sizes remained weak for both. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Mammography facility and radiologist supply-side factors are only weakly associated with county-level Medicare beneficiary screening mammography rates, and as such, screening mammography may differ from many other health-care services. Although efforts to enhance facility and radiologist supply may be helpful, initiatives to improve screening mammography rates should focus more on demand-side factors, such as patient education and primary care physician education and access.