Faculty Bibliography
Searched for:
person:rosena23
Total Results:
532
Academic Radiologist Subspecialty Identification Using a Novel Claims-Based Classification System
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study is to assess the feasibility of a novel claims-based classification system for payer identification of academic radiologist subspecialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a categorization scheme based on the Neiman Imaging Types of Service (NITOS) system, we mapped the Medicare Part B services billed by all radiologists from 2012 to 2014, assigning them to the following subspecialty categories: abdominal imaging, breast imaging, cardiothoracic imaging, musculoskeletal imaging, nuclear medicine, interventional radiology, and neuroradiology. The percentage of subspecialty work relative value units (RVUs) to total billed work RVUs was calculated for each radiologist nationwide. For radiologists at the top 20 academic departments funded by the National Institutes of Health, those percentages were compared with subspecialties designated on faculty websites. NITOS-based subspecialty assignments were also compared with the only radiologist subspecialty classifications currently recognized by Medicare (i.e., nuclear medicine and interventional radiology). RESULTS: Of 1012 academic radiologists studied, the median percentage of Medicare-billed NITOS-based subspecialty work RVUs matching the subspecialty designated on radiologists' own websites ranged from 71.3% (for nuclear medicine) to 98.9% (for neuroradiology). A NITOS-based work RVU threshold of 50% correctly classified 89.8% of radiologists (5.9% were not mapped to any subspecialty; subspecialty error rate, 4.2%). In contrast, existing Medicare provider codes identified only 46.7% of nuclear medicine physicians and 39.4% of interventional radiologists. CONCLUSION: Using a framework based on a recently established imaging health services research tool that maps service codes based on imaging modality and body region, Medicare claims data can be used to consistently identify academic radiologists by subspecialty in a manner not possible with the use of existing Medicare physician specialty identifiers. This method may facilitate more appropriate performance metrics for subspecialty academic physicians under emerging value-based payment models.
PMID: 28301213
ISSN: 1546-3141
CID: 2490072
Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the prostate: An intraindividual assessment of the effect of temporal resolution on qualitative detection and quantitative analysis of histopathologically proven prostate cancer
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
PMCID:5538355
PMID: 27649481
ISSN: 1522-2586
CID: 2254782
Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR. 2017:14(5):609-614.DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.10.013
What Patients Think About Their Interventional Radiologists: Assessment Using a Leading Physician Ratings Website
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction scores for interventional radiologists (IRs) across the United States using a leading physician ratings website. METHODS: The physician ratings website Healthgrades was manually queried for all 2,774 Medicare-participating self-designated IRs. All patient-reviewed IRs for whom the primary "likelihood of recommending to family and friends" field was scored were included, resulting in 781 included IRs. Physician characteristics were extracted from Medicare data sets. All available patient satisfaction scores (1 [poor] to 5 [excellent]: likelihood to recommend, ease of scheduling, office environment, staff friendliness, trust in physician's decisions, how well physician explains condition, how well physician listens and answers questions, whether physician spends appropriate time with patients) and wait times were extracted from Healthgrades. Associations among measures were explored. RESULTS: IRs' mean likelihood-to-recommend score was 4.3 +/- 1.2 (median, 5.0; 64.5% received a score of 5; 10.5% received scores < 3). Mean scores ranged from 4.4 to 4.5 for office-related factors and from 4.3 to 4.5 for physician-related factors. Likelihood-to-recommend scores showed substantial correlations with office-related factors (r = 0.738 to 0.780) and physician-related factors (r = 0.918 to 0.946). Likelihood to recommend was significantly higher for IRs with shorter wait times (P < .001) but was not associated with physician gender or geographic region (P = 0.370-0.791), nor was there any correlation with physician age, years since graduation, or group practice size (r = -0.089 to 0.096). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction scores on a leading physician ratings website generally range from very good to excellent for US IRs. Most patients leaving reviews are likely to recommend their own IRs to friends or family members. The likelihood to recommend is strongly associated with differences in wait times.
PMID: 28017529
ISSN: 1558-349x
CID: 2383462
Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR. 2017:14(5):703-709.DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.09.016
Trends in Publications in Radiology Journals Designated as Relating to Patient-Centered Care
PURPOSE: To assess trends in publications in radiology journals designated as dealing with patient-centered care. METHODS: PubMed was searched for articles in radiology journals for which the article's record referenced patient-centered/patient-centric care. Among these, original research articles were identified and assigned major themes. Trends were assessed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 115 articles in radiology journals designated as dealing with patient-centered care were identified, including 40 original research articles. The number of articles annually ranged from 0 to 4 in 2000-2008, 5 to 9 in 2010-2012, 14 to 15 in 2013-2014, and 25 in 2015. Only four radiology journals had published more than one of the original research articles. Original research articles' most common themes were: optimization of patients' access to reports and images (n=7); patients' examination experience (5); image evaluation (n=4); radiologists meeting with patients (n=4); improving patients' knowledge of imaging (n=3); examination wait times/efficiency (n=3); examination utilization/appropriateness (n=3); and IT enhancements (n=3). A total of 13 of 40 original research articles solicited opinions from patients. One study involved patients in educating trainees regarding patient-centered care. No study involved patients in system-level decisions regarding health care design and delivery. CONCLUSION: Articles dealing with patient-centered care in radiology are increasing, though they remain concentrated in a limited number of journals. Though major themes included image/report access, patient experiences, and radiologists meeting with patients, many studies dealt with less clearly patient-centric topics such as examination interpretation, while inclusion of patients in systems design was lacking. Further research in radiology is encouraged to target a broader range of ideals of patient-centered care, such as diversity, autonomy, and compassion, and to incorporate greater patient engagement.
PMID: 28017275
ISSN: 1558-349x
CID: 2383412
The American College of Radiology Incidental Findings Committee Recommendations for Management of Incidental Lymph Nodes: A Single-Center Evaluation
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the American College of Radiology Incidental Findings Committee's (ACR-IFC) recommendations for defining and following up abnormal incidental abdominopelvic lymph nodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 59 lymph nodes satisfying ACR-IFC criteria as incidental (no malignancy or lymphoproliferative disorder) and with sufficient follow-up to classify as benign (biopsy, decreased size, >/=12-month stability) or malignant (biopsy, detection of primary malignancy combined with either fluorodeoxyglucose hyperactivity or increase in size of the node) were included. Two radiologists independently assessed nodes for suspicious features by ACR-IFC criteria (round with indistinct hilum, hypervascularity, necrosis, cluster >/=3 nodes, cluster >/=2 nodes in >/=2 stations, size >/=1 cm in retroperitoneum). Outcomes were assessed with attention to ACR-IFC's recommendation for initial 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 8.5% of nodes were malignant; 91.5% were benign. Two of six malignant nodes were stable at 3 to <6-month follow-up before diagnosis; diagnosis of four of five malignant nodes was facilitated by later development of non-nodal sites of tumor. A total of 13, 5, 8, and 9 nodes were deemed benign given a decrease at <3 months, 3-5 months, 6-11 months, or >/=12 months of follow-up. No ACR-IFC feature differentiated benign and malignant nodes (P = 0.164-1.0). A cluster >/=3 nodes was present in 88.1%-93.2% of nodes. A total of 96.6%-98.3% had >/=1 suspicious feature for both readers. Necrosis and hypervascularity were not identified in any node. CONCLUSIONS: ACR-IFC imaging features overwhelmingly classified incidental nodes as abnormal, although did not differentiate benign and malignant nodes. Nodes stable at the ACR-IFC's advised initial 3-month follow-up were occasionally proven malignant or decreased on further imaging. Refinement of imaging criteria to define nodes of particularly high risk, integrated with other clinical criteria, may help optimize the follow-up of incidental abdominopelvic lymph nodes.
PMID: 28169142
ISSN: 1878-4046
CID: 2437382
Role of MRI prebiopsy in men at risk for prostate cancer: taking off the blindfold
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We review recent literature surrounding the use of prebiopsy prostate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy in men at risk for prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Large series have strengthened the case for the use of MRI prior to prostate biopsy to maximize the detection of clinically significant disease, reduce the detection of clinically insignificant disease, and allow for tumor localization during targeted biopsy. Prebiopsy MRI followed by targeted biopsy appears to have the ability to overcome the limitations of the standard 12-core template. Use of MRI and targeted biopsy in the setting of a prior negative biopsy is supported by the literature and a recent consensus statement by the American Urological Association and the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-Focused Panel but is contingent upon the availability and quality of multiparametric MRI acquisition and interpretation. In men with no previous biopsy, MRI and targeted biopsy appears to increase detection of clinically significant disease compared with systematic biopsy while reducing detection of indolent disease. The addition of prostate cancer biomarkers and predictive nomograms may further enhance prebiopsy risk assessment. SUMMARY: Prostate MRI prior to biopsy may guide counseling regarding prostate cancer risk, allow for accurate tumor localization during targeted biopsy, and increase detection of clinically significant cancer while limiting detection of indolent disease. Its use prior to biopsy, in conjunction with biomarkers and predictive nomograms, may allow deferral of biopsy in select cases.
PMID: 28234749
ISSN: 1473-6586
CID: 2460372
How Satisfied Are Patients With Their Radiologists? Assessment Using a National Patient Ratings Website
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.
PMID: 28199131
ISSN: 1546-3141
CID: 2449202
Contrast reaction training in US radiology residencies: a (BLINDED) study
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.
PMID: 28314200
ISSN: 1873-4499
CID: 2490262
The Role of Ipsilateral and Contralateral TRUS-Guided Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men with Unilateral MRI Lesion Undergoing MRI-US Fusion-Targeted Prostate Biopsy
OBJECTIVE: To determine how ipsilateral (ipsi) and contralateral (contra) systematic biopsies (SB) impacts detection of clinically significant versus insignificant prostate cancer (PCa) in men with unilateral MRI lesion undergoing MRI fusion target biopsy (MRF-TB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 211 cases with one unilateral MRI lesion were subjected to SB and MRF-TB. Biopsy tissue cores from the MRF-TB, ipsi-SB and contra-SB were analyzed separately. RESULTS: A direct relationship was observed between MRI suspicious score (SS) and detection of any cancer, Gleason 6 PCa and Gleason > 6 PCa. MRF-TB alone, MRF-TB + ipsi-SB and MRF-TB + contra-SB detected 64.1%, 89.1% and 76.1% of all PCa, respectively, 53.5%, 81.4% and 69.8% of Gleason 6 PCa, respectively, and 73.5%, 96.0% and 81.6% of Gleason >6 PCa, respectively. MRF-TB + ipsi-SB detected 96% of clinically significant PCa and avoided detection of 18.6% of clinically insignificant PCa. MRF-TB + contra-SB detected 81.6% of clinically significant PCa and avoided detection of 30.2% of clinically insignificant PCa. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that ipsi-SB should be added to MRF-TB as detection of clinically significant PCa increases with only a modest increase in clinically insignificant PCa detection. Contra-SB in this setting may be deferred since it primarily detects clinically insignificant PCa.
PMID: 27871829
ISSN: 1527-9995
CID: 2314362
Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR. 2017:14(4):475-481.DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.12.025
Downstream Imaging Utilization After Emergency Department Ultrasound Interpreted by Radiologists Versus Nonradiologists: A Medicare Claims-Based Study
OBJECTIVE: To study differences in imaging utilization downstream to initial emergency department (ED) ultrasound examinations interpreted by radiologists versus nonradiologists. METHODS: Using 5% Medicare Research Identifiable Files from 2009 to 2014, we identified episodes where the place of service was "emergency room hospital" and the patient also underwent an ultrasound examination. We determined whether the initial ultrasound was interpreted by a radiologist or nonradiologist and then summed all additional imaging events occurring within 7, 14, and 30 days of each initial ED ultrasound. For each year and each study window, we calculated the mean number of downstream imaging procedures by specialty group. RESULTS: Of 200,357 ED ultrasound events, 163,569 (81.6%) were interpreted by radiologists and 36,788 (18.4%) by nonradiologists. Across all study years, ED patients undergoing ultrasound examinations interpreted by nonradiologists underwent 1.08, 1.22, and 1.34 additional diagnostic imaging studies at 7, 14, and 30 days, respectively (P < .01) compared with when the initial ultrasound examination was interpreted by a radiologist. From 2010 to 2014, the volume of downstream imaging for both radiologists and nonradiologists significantly decreased, with each year resulting in 0.08 fewer imaging examinations (P < .001) 14 days after the ED ultrasound event. Despite that decline, differences in downstream imaging between radiologists and nonradiologists persisted over time. CONCLUSION: Downstream imaging after an initial ED ultrasound is significantly reduced when the ultrasound examination is interpreted by a radiologist rather than a nonradiologist.
PMID: 28237424
ISSN: 1558-349x
CID: 2471382
