Faculty Bibliography

Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a beneficial strategy for management of low risk prostate cancer (PCa) and prevention of overtreatment of indolent disease. However, selection of patients for AS using traditional 12-core transrectal prostate biopsy is prone to sampling error and presents a challenge for accurate risk stratification. In fact, around a third of men are upgraded on repeat biopsy which disqualifies them as appropriate AS candidates. This uncertainty affects adoption of AS among patients and physicians, leading to current AS protocols involving repetitive prostate biopsies and unclear triggers for progression to definitive treatment. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to overcome some of these limitations through localization of significant tumors in the prostate. In conjunction with MRI-targeted prostate biopsy, improved sampling and detection of clinically significant PCa can help streamline the process of selecting suitable men for AS and early exclusion of men who require definitive treatment. MRI can also help minimize the invasive nature of monitoring for disease progression while on AS. Men with stable MRI findings have high negative predictive value for Gleason upgrade on subsequently biopsy, suggesting that men may potentially be monitored by serial MRI examinations with biopsy reserved for significant changes on imaging. Targeted biopsy on AS also allows for specific sampling of concerning lesions, although further data is necessary to evaluate the relative contribution of systematic and targeted biopsy in detecting the 25-30% of men who progress on AS. Further research is also warranted to better understand the nature of clinically significant cancers that are missed on MRI and why certain men have progression of disease that is not visible on prostate MRI. Consensus is also needed over what constitutes progression on MRI, when prostate biopsy can be safely avoided, and how to best utilize this additional information in current AS protocols. Despite these challenges, prostate MRI, either alone or in conjunction with MRI-targeted prostate biopsy, has the potential to significantly improve our current AS paradigm and rates of AS adoption among patients moving forward.

To use Twitter to assess the immediate public response to the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 draft guidelines on lung cancer screening with low-dose chest CT (LDCT). The number of tweets including the phrases "lung cancer screening," "lung CT," "chest CT," "low dose computed tomography," "low dose CT," or "LDCT" was recorded for 6 days before and after guidelines release. A systematic sample of 172 tweets from the week following release was coded for user type, tweet opinion, linked article source, and article opinion. Following guidelines' release, the number of daily tweets increased from 13 +/- 8 to 311 +/- 395. The 172 tweets in the week following release were tweeted by 166 unique users including: news organizations/online news gathering accounts (34.9%), general public (21.7%), physicians (12.0%, 6 radiologists), and businesses (11.4%). 23.3% of tweets provided opinion on the guidelines (50.0% favorable, 27.5% concerned toward screening). Most (91.3%) tweets contained links to a total of 46 unique articles, which were authored by lay press (41.3%), non-peer-reviewed medical press (32.6%), and hospital/medical practice websites (10.9%). Among these, 50.0% were favorable, citing mortality reduction (87.0%), published data supporting screening (50.0%), and early detection (43.5%), while 28.3% expressed concern, including false positives (58.9%) and radiation risk (39.1%). Twitter activity rose rapidly after the USPSTF draft guidelines on LDCT. Most users were non-physicians and frequently cited non-peer-reviewed articles. Users maintained an overall favorable view of screening, while expressing various concerns. Considerable opportunity exists for greater radiologist engagement in this online public dialog.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of patient race and age on the performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 457 prostate cancer patients who underwent 3T phased-array coil prostate MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI; maximal b-value 1000 s/mm2) before prostatectomy were included. Mean ADC of a single dominant lesion was measured in each patient, using histopathologic findings from the prostatectomy specimen as reference. In subsets defined by race and age, ADC values were compared between Gleason score (GS) /= 4 + 3 tumors. RESULTS: 81% of patients were Caucasian, 12% African-American, 7% Asian-American. 13% were <55 years, 42% 55-64 years, 41% 65-74 years, and 4% >/=75 years. 63% were GS /= 4 + 3. ADC was significantly lower in GS >/= 4 + 3 tumors than in GS /= 4 + 3 as well as optimal ADC threshold was Caucasian: 0.73//=75 years, 0.79//=75 years than <55 years or 55-64 years (100.0% vs. 53.6%-73.3%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients' race and age may impact the diagnostic performance and optimal threshold when applying ADC values for evaluation of prostate cancer aggressiveness.

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015 describes alternative payment models (APMs) as new approaches to health care payment that incentivize higher quality and value. MACRA incentivizes increasing APM participation by all physician specialties over the coming years. Some APMs will be deemed Advanced APMs; clinicians who are a Qualifying Participant in an Advanced APM will receive substantial benefits under MACRA including an automatic 5% payment bonus, regardless of their performance and savings within the APM, and a larger payment rate increase beginning in 2026. Existing APMs are most relevant to primary care physicians, and opportunities for radiologists to participate in Advanced APMs fulfilling Qualified Participant requirements are limited. Physician-Focused Payment Models (PFPMs), as described in MACRA, are APMs that target physicians' Medicare payments based on quality and cost of physician services. PFPMs must address a new issue or specialty compared with existing APMs and will thus foster a more diverse range of APMs encompassing a wider range of specialties. The PFPM Technical Advisory Committee is a new independent agency that will review proposals for new PFPMs and provide recommendations to CMS regarding their approval. The PFPM Technical Advisory Committee comprises largely primary care physicians and health policy experts and is not required to consult clinical experts when reviewing new specialist-proposed PFPMs. As PFPMs provide a compelling opportunity for radiologists to demonstrate and be rewarded for their unique contributions toward patient care, radiologists should embrace this new model and actively partner with other stakeholders in developing radiology-relevant PFPMs.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess features of patient satisfaction scores for U.S. radiologists using a popular physician rating website. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient reviews were retrieved from the website RateMDs for all listed radiologists in all 297 U.S. cities with population 100,000 or greater. Reviews included rating scores of 1-5 (5 = highest) in four categories (staff, punctuality, knowledge, and helpfulness). Additional physician information was obtained from Medicare files. Common words in patient free-text comments were assessed. Statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: We identified 1891 patient reviews for 1259 radiologists. In all four categories, the most common score was 5 for excellent (62.7-74.3%), and the second most common score was 1 for terrible (13.5-20.4%); scores of 2-4 were far less frequent (1.9-11.6%). Scores for all four categories highly correlated with one another (r = 0.781-0.951). Radiologists in the Northeast scored significantly lower (p < 0.001) than those elsewhere for both staff and punctuality. Radiologists attending a designated top 50 medical school showed nonsignificant trends toward lower scores for helpfulness (p = 0.073) and knowledge (p = 0.062). The most common words in free-text comments for positive reviews were "caring," "knowledgeable," and "professional." For negative reviews, "rude," "pain," and "unprofessional" were most common. CONCLUSION: Overall, most radiologists rated online by their patients score well, but reviews tended to be either strongly positive or negative. Scores across various categories are highly correlated, suggesting that there is a halo effect. Radiologists should recognize the effect of both facility- and radiologist-related factors in influencing patients' overall perceptions.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a survey-based assessment of current contrast reaction training in US diagnostic radiology residency programs. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to radiology residency program directors from 9/2015-11/2015. RESULTS: 25.7% of programs responded. 95.7% of those who responded provide contrast reaction management training. 89.4% provide didactic lectures (occurring yearly in 71.4%). 37.8% provide hands-on simulation training (occurring yearly in 82.3%; attended by both faculty and trainees in 52.9%). CONCLUSION: Wide variability in contrast reaction education in US diagnostic radiology residency programs reveals an opportunity to develop and implement a national curriculum.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of temporal resolution (RT ) in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) on qualitative tumor detection and quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters in prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved study included 58 men (64 +/- 7 years). They underwent 3T prostate MRI showing dominant peripheral zone (PZ) tumors (24 with Gleason >/= 4 + 3), prior to prostatectomy. Continuously acquired DCE utilizing GRASP (Golden-angle RAdial Sparse Parallel) was retrospectively reconstructed at RT of 1.4 sec, 3.7 sec, 6.0 sec, 9.7 sec, and 14.9 sec. A reader placed volumes-of-interest on dominant tumors and benign PZ, generating quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters (ktrans , ve ) at each RT . Two blinded readers assessed each RT for lesion presence, location, conspicuity, and reader confidence on a 5-point scale. Data were assessed by mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA), generalized estimating equation (GEE), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: RT did not affect sensitivity (R1all : 69.0%-72.4%, all Padj = 1.000; R1GS>/=4 + 3 : 83.3-91.7%, all Padj = 1.000; R2all : 60.3-69.0%, all Padj = 1.000; R2GS>/=4 + 3 : 58.3%-79.2%, all Padj = 1.000). R1 reported greater conspicuity of GS >/= 4 + 3 tumors at RT of 1.4 sec vs. 14.9 sec (4.29 +/- 1.23 vs. 3.46 +/- 1.44; Padj = 0.029). No other tumor conspicuity pairwise comparison reached significance (R1all : 2.98-3.43, all Padj >/= 0.205; R2all : 2.57-3.19, all Padj >/= 0.059; R1GS>/=4 + 3 : 3.46-4.29, all other Padj >/= 0.156; R2GS>/=4 + 3 : 2.92-3.71, all Padj >/= 0.439). There was no effect of RT on reader confidence (R1all : 3.17-3.34, all Padj = 1.000; R2all : 2.83-3.19, all Padj >/= 0.801; R1GS>/=4 + 3 : 3.79-4.21, all Padj = 1.000; R2GS>/=4 + 3 : 3.13-3.79, all Padj = 1.000). ktrans and ve of tumor and benign tissue did not differ across RT (all adjusted P values [Padj ] = 1.000). RT did not significantly affect area under the curve (AUC) of Ktrans or ve for differentiating tumor from benign (all Padj = 1.000). CONCLUSION: Current PI-RADS recommendations for RT of 10 seconds may be sufficient, with further reduction to the stated PI-RADS preference of RT