Faculty Bibliography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To characterize online news coverage relating to mammography, including articles' stance toward screening mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Google News was used to search U.S. news sites over a 9-year period (2006-2015) based on the search terms "mammography" and "mammogram." The top 100 search results were recorded. Identified articles were manually reviewed. RESULTS: The top 100 news articles were from the following sources: local news outlet (50%), national news outlet (24%), nonimaging medical source (13%), entertainment or culture news outlet (6%), business news outlet (4%), peer-reviewed journal (1%), and radiology news outlet (1%). Most common major themes were the screening mammography controversy (29%), description of a new breast imaging technology (23%), dense breasts (11%), and promotion of a public screening initiative (11%). For the most recent year, article stance toward screening mammography was 59%, favorable; 16%, unfavorable; and 25%, neutral. After 2010, there was an abrupt shift in articles' stances from neutral to both favorable and unfavorable. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of online news sources addressed a range of issues related to mammography. National, rather than local, news sites were more likely to focus on the screening controversy and more likely to take an unfavorable view. The controversial United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines may have influenced articles to take a stance on screening mammography. As such online news may impact public perception of the topic and thus potentially impact guideline adherence, radiologists are encouraged to maintain awareness of this online coverage and to support the online dissemination of reliable and accurate information.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess a novel method of three-dimensional (3D) co-registration of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations performed before and after prostate cancer focal therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a software platform for automatic 3D deformable co-registration of prostate MRI at different time points and applied this method to 10 patients who underwent focal ablative therapy. MRI examinations were performed preoperatively, as well as 1 week and 6 months post treatment. Rigid registration served as reference for assessing co-registration accuracy and precision. RESULTS: Segmentation of preoperative and postoperative prostate revealed a significant postoperative volume decrease of the gland that averaged 6.49 cc (P = .017). Applying deformable transformation based on mutual information from 120 pairs of MRI slices, we refined by 2.9 mm (max. 6.25 mm) the alignment of the ablation zone, segmented from contrast-enhanced images on the 1-week postoperative examination, to the 6-month postoperative T2-weighted images. This represented a 500% improvement over the rigid approach (P = .001), corrected by volume. The dissimilarity by Dice index of the mapped ablation zone using deformable transformation vs rigid control was significantly (P = .04) higher at the ablation site than in the whole gland. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate our method's ability to correct for deformation at the ablation site. The preliminary analysis suggests that deformable transformation computed from mutual information of preoperative and follow-up MRI is accurate in co-registration of MRI examinations performed before and after focal therapy. The ability to localize the previously ablated tissue in 3D space may improve targeting for image-guided follow-up biopsy within focal therapy protocols.

OBJECTIVE:Radiologic technologists may repeat images within a radiographic examination because of perceived suboptimal image quality, excluding these original images from submission to a PACS. This study assesses the appropriateness of technologists' decisions to repeat musculoskeletal and chest radiographs as well as the utility of repeat radiographs in addressing examinations' clinical indication. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We included 95 musculoskeletal and 87 chest radiographic examinations in which the technologist repeated one or more images because of perceived image quality issues, rejecting original images from PACS submission. Rejected images were retrieved from the radiograph unit and uploaded for viewing on a dedicated server. Musculoskeletal and chest radiologists reviewed rejected and repeat images in their timed sequence, in addition to the studies' remaining images. Radiologists answered questions regarding the added value of repeat images. RESULTS:The reviewing radiologist agreed with the reason for rejection for 64.2% of musculoskeletal and 60.9% of chest radiographs. For 77.9% and 93.1% of rejected radiographs, the clinical inquiry could have been satisfied without repeating the image. For 75.8% and 64.4%, the repeated images showed improved image quality. Only 28.4% and 3.4% of repeated images were considered to provide additional information that was helpful in addressing the clinical question. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Most repeated radiographs (chest more so than musculoskeletal radiographs) did not add significant clinical information or alter diagnosis, although they did increase radiation exposure. The decision to repeat images should be made after viewing the questionable image in context with all images in a study and might best be made by a radiologist rather than the performing technologist.

Systematic transrectal ultrasonography (US)-guided biopsy is the standard approach for histopathologic diagnosis of prostate cancer. However, this technique has multiple limitations because of its inability to accurately visualize and target prostate lesions. Multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the prostate is more reliably able to localize significant prostate cancer. Targeted prostate biopsy by using MR imaging may thus help to reduce false-negative results and improve risk assessment. Several commercial devices are now available for targeted prostate biopsy, including in-gantry MR imaging-targeted biopsy and real-time transrectal US-MR imaging fusion biopsy systems. This article reviews the current status of MR imaging-targeted biopsy platforms, including technical considerations, as well as advantages and challenges of each technique. (c) RSNA, 2017.

PURPOSE: In 2006, the AMA/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) introduced ongoing relativity screens to identify potentially misvalued medical services for payment adjustments. We assess the impact of these screens upon the valuation of noninvasive diagnostic radiology services. METHODS: Data regarding relativity screens and relative value unit (RVU) changes were obtained from the 2016 AMA Relativity Assessment Status Report. All global codes in the 2016 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule with associated work RVUs were classified as noninvasive diagnostic radiology services versus remaining services. The frequency of having ever undergone a screen was compared between the two groups. Screened radiology codes were further evaluated regarding the RVU impact of subsequent revaluation. RESULTS: Of noninvasive diagnostic radiology codes, 46.0% (201 of 437) were screened versus 22.2% (1,460 of 6,575) of remaining codes (P < .001). Most common screens for which radiology codes were identified as potentially misvalued were (1) high expenditures (27.5%) and (2) high utilization (25.6%). The modality and body region most likely to be identified in a screen were CT (82.1%) and breast (90.9%), respectively. Among screened radiology codes, work RVUs, practice expense RVUs, and nonfacility total RVUs decreased in 20.3%, 65.9%, and 75.3%, respectively. All screened CT, MRI, brain, and spine codes exhibited decreased total RVUs. CONCLUSION: Policymakers' ongoing search for potentially misvalued medical services has disproportionately impacted noninvasive diagnostic radiology services, risking the introduction of unintended or artificial shifts in physician practice.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess both existing Medicare provider code assignments and a new claims-based system for subspecialty classification of private practice radiologists. METHODS: Websites of the 100 largest US radiology private practices were used to identify 1,476 radiologists self-identified with a single subspecialty ([1] abdominal, [2] breast, [3] cardiothoracic, or [4] musculoskeletal imaging; [5] nuclear medicine; [6] interventional radiology; [7] neuroradiology). Concordance of existing Medicare radiology subspecialty provider codes (present only for nuclear medicine and interventional radiology) was first assessed. Next, using a classification approach based on Neiman Imaging Types of Service (NITOS) piloted among academic practices, the percentage of subspecialty work relative value units (wRVUs) from 2012 to 2014 Medicare claims were used to assign each radiologist a unique subspecialty. RESULTS: Existing Medicare provider codes matched only 8.0% of nuclear medicine physicians and 10.7% of interventional radiologists to their self-reported subspecialties. The NITOS-based system mapped a median 51.9% of private practice radiologists' wRVUs to self-identified subspecialties (range, 23.3% [nuclear medicine] to 73.6% [neuroradiology]). The 50% NITOS-based wRVU threshold previously established for academic radiologists correctly assigned subspecialties to 48.8% of private practice radiologists but incorrectly categorized 2.9%. Practice patterns of the remaining 48.3% were sufficiently varied such that no single subspecialty assignment was possible. CONCLUSIONS: Existing Medicare provider codes poorly mirror subspecialty radiologists' own practice website-designated subspecialties. Actual payer claims data permit far more granular and accurate subspecialty identification for many radiologists. As new payment models increasingly focus on subspecialty-specific performance measures, claims-based identification methodologies show promise for reproducibly and transparently matching radiologists to practice-relevant metrics.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess temporal changes in the utilization of musculoskeletal extremity imaging in Medicare beneficiaries over a recent 20-year period (1994-2013). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files from 1994 through 2013 were used to study changing utilization and utilization rates of the four most common musculoskeletal imaging modalities: radiography, MRI, CT, and ultrasound. RESULTS: Utilization rates (per 1000 beneficiaries) for all four musculoskeletal extremity imaging modalities increased over time: 43% (from 441.7 to 633.6) for radiography, 615% (5.4-38.6) for MRI, 758% (1.2-10.3) for CT, and 500% (1.8-10.8) for ultrasound. Radiologists were the most common billing specialty group for all modalities throughout the 20-year period, maintaining dominant market shares for MRI and CT (84% and 96% in 2013). In recent years, the second most common billing group was orthopedic surgery for radiography, MRI, and CT and podiatry for ultrasound. The physician office was the most common site of service for radiography, MRI, and ultrasound, whereas the hospital outpatient and inpatient settings were the most common sites for CT. CONCLUSION: In the Medicare population, the most common musculoskeletal extremity imaging modalities increased substantially in utilization over the 2-decade period from 1994 through 2013. Throughout that time, radiology remained the most common billing specialty, and the physician office and hospital outpatient settings remained the most common sites of service. These insights may have implications for radiology practice leaders in making decisions regarding capital infrastructure, workforce, and training investments to ensure the provision of optimal imaging services for extremity musculoskeletal care.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess informal consultations between radiologists and referring physicians as identified through an electronic medical record (EMR) search. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EMR was searched for physician notes containing either the term "radiologist" or "radiology" in combination with any of the following: "second opinion," "second-opinion," "2nd opinion," "2nd-opinion," "rereview," "re-review," "reread," "re-read," "overread," "over-read," "spoke with," "discussed with," or "reviewed with." A sample of 300 notes describing a consultation by a referring physician with a diagnostic radiologist was identified. RESULTS: Of the consultations, 73.3% were related to a specific previously interpreted imaging study, and 26.7% were related to other general management issues, including patient safety. Only 18.7% of the physicians' notes indicated the name of the consulted radiologist; a fraction of these consultations were with a radiologist other than the one who originally interpreted the study or with a radiologist at an outside institution. Of consultations with a local radiologist regarding a specific prior examination, 33.9% resulted in a new finding, a change in severity of a previously detected finding, or a change in management recommendation. Of consultations with a change from the initial report, 24.6% were documented by the radiologist via an addendum; 92.9% of these addenda agreed with the referring physicians' notes. CONCLUSION: Radiologists may be unaware of how their consultations are captured within physician notes that may be incomplete or misrepresent the communication. Radiology practices should consider developing policies requiring radiologists to document informal consultations potentially affecting patient management, while developing solutions to facilitate such documentation when it is not readily achieved through report addenda (e.g., through direct documentation by the radiologist in the EMR).

PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with list price variation for radiologists' services. METHODS: The 2014 Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was used to identify submitted charges ("list prices") and payments for radiologists' services (ie, not hospital service charges). Charge-to-payment ratios were computed for individual radiologists as a measure of excess charges. Numerous radiologist-level factors identifiable using publicly available data sets were explored. RESULTS: Among 26,715 radiologists nationally, the mean charge-to-payment ratio was 4.2 +/- 2.0. A greater charge-to-payment ratio was most strongly predicted for those serving higher-complexity patients (ratio ranging from 3.8 +/- 1.8 to 4.1 +/- 1.6 for radiologists in the first through third quartiles in terms of patient complexity, compared with a ratio of 4.8 +/- 2.8 for radiologists in the highest quartile in terms of patient complexity). A higher charge-to-payment ratio was also observed among those with, rather than without, a teaching institutional affiliation (4.7 +/- 2.8 versus 4.0 +/- 1.8, respectively) and among subspecialists rather than generalists (4.4 +/- 2.5 versus 3.9 +/- 1.5, respectively). Among subspecialties, charge-to-payment ratios ranged from 3.3 +/- 1.3 (breast imaging) to 5.7 +/- 4.1 (interventional radiology). Charge-to-payment ratios showed weak inverse correlations with total service volume (r = -0.13) and total payments (r = -0.11). CONCLUSION: Distinct from hospital prices and historically considered arbitrary, higher charges for radiologists' services demonstrate consistent patterns of variation and are most strongly seen for those serving higher complexity patients. As price transparency initiatives expand, radiologists should be aware of how and why their list prices compare with local and national benchmarks.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to compare image quality and tumor assessment at prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted imaging (rFOV-DWI) and standard DWI (st-DWI). METHODS:A total of 49 patients undergoing prostate MRI and MRI/ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy were included. Examinations included st-DWI (field of view [FOV], 200 × 200 mm) and rFOV-DWI (FOV, 140 × 64 mm) using a 2-dimensional (2D) spatially-selective radiofrequency pulse and parallel transmission. Two readers performed qualitative assessments; a third reader performed quantitative evaluation. RESULTS:Overall image quality, anatomic distortion, visualization of capsule, and visualization of peripheral/transition zone edge were better for rFOV-DWI for reader 1 (P ≤ 0.002), although not for reader 2 (P ≥ 0.567). For both readers, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for tumor with a Gleason Score (GS) of 3 + 4 or higher were not different (P ≥ 0.289). Lesion clarity was higher for st-DWI for reader 2 (P = 0.008), although similar for reader 1 (P = 0.409). Diagnostic confidence was not different for either reader (P ≥ 0.052). Tumor-to-benign apparent diffusion coefficient ratio was not different (P = 0.675). CONCLUSIONS:Potentially improved image quality of rFOV-DWI did not yield improved tumor assessment. Continued optimization is warranted.