Faculty Bibliography

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.

Scientific rigor should be consistently applied to quality improvement (QI) research to ensure that healthcare interventions improve quality and patient safety before widespread implementation. This article provides an overview of the various study designs that can be used for QI research depending on the stage of investigation, scope of the QI intervention, constraints on the researchers and intervention being studied, and evidence needed to support widespread implementation. The most commonly used designs in QI studies are quasi-experimental designs. Randomized controlled trials and cluster randomized trials are typically reserved for large-scale research projects evaluating the effectiveness of QI interventions that may be implemented broadly, have more than a minimal impact on patients, or are costly. Systematic reviews of QI studies will play an important role in providing overviews of evidence supporting particular QI interventions or methods of achieving change. We also review the general requirements for developing quality measures for reimbursement, public reporting, and pay-for-performance initiatives. A critical part of the testing process for quality measures includes assessment of feasibility, reliability, validity, and unintended consequences. Finally, publication and critical appraisal of QI work is discussed as an essential component to generating evidence supporting QI initiatives in radiology.

Promoting quality and safety research is now essential for radiology as reimbursement is increasingly tied to measures of quality, patient safety, efficiency, and appropriateness of imaging. This article provides an overview of key features necessary to promote successful quality improvement efforts in radiology. Emphasis is given to current trends and future opportunities for directing research. Establishing and maintaining a culture of safety is paramount to organizations wishing to improve patient care. The correct culture must be in place to support quality initiatives and create accountability for patient care. Focused educational curricula are necessary to teach quality and safety-related skills and behaviors to trainees, staff members, and physicians. The increasingly complex healthcare landscape requires that organizations build effective data infrastructures to support quality and safety research. Incident reporting systems designed specifically for medical imaging will benefit quality improvement initiatives by identifying and learning from system errors, enhancing knowledge about safety, and creating safer systems through the implementation of standardized practices and standards. Finally, validated performance measures must be developed to accurately reflect the value of the care we provide for our patients and referring providers. Common metrics used in radiology are reviewed with focus on current and future opportunities for investigation.

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies in prostate diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have largely explored the impact of b-value and diffusion directions on estimated diffusion coefficient D. Here we suggest varying diffusion time, t, to study time-dependent D(t) in prostate cancer, thereby adding an extra dimension in the development of prostate cancer biomarkers. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with peripheral zone prostate cancer underwent 3-T MRI using an external-array coil and a diffusion-weighted image sequence acquired for b = 0, as well as along 12 noncollinear gradient directions for b = 500 s/mm using stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). For this sequence, 6 diffusion times ranging from 20.8 to 350 milliseconds were acquired. Tumors were classified as low-grade (Gleason score [GS] 3 + 3; n = 11), intermediate-grade (GS 3 + 4; n = 16), and high-grade (GS >/=4 + 3; n = 11). Benign peripheral zone and transition zone were also studied. RESULTS: Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) D(t) decreased with increasing t in all zones of the prostate, though the rate of decay in D(t) was different between sampled zones. Analysis of variance and area under the curve analyses suggested better differentiation of tumor grades at shorter t. Fractional anisotropy (FA) increased with t for all regions of interest. On average, highest FA was observed within GS 3 + 3 tumors. CONCLUSIONS: There is a measurable time dependence of ADC in prostate cancer, which is dependent on the underlying tissue and Gleason score. Therefore, there may be an optimal selection of t for prediction of tumor grade using ADC. Controlling t should allow ADC to achieve greater reproducibility between different sites and vendors. Intentionally varying t enables targeted exploration of D(t), a previously overlooked biophysical phenomenon in the prostate. Its further microstructural understanding and modeling may lead to novel diffusion-derived biomarkers.

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.

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.

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.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of an array of nongeographic patient and within-year temporal factors on variation in Medicare imaging utilization. METHODS: Using the CMS Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse, we identified imaging events nationally per 1,000 Medicare beneficiaries from 2008 through 2014 on a quarterly basis. We also stratified imaging utilization by a variety of clinical and sociodemographic patient factors. Data were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: On a quarterly basis from 2008 through 2014, mean and median imaging utilization were highest in the second quarter (878 and 885 imaging events per 1,000 beneficiaries, respectively) and lowest in the fourth quarter (844 and 846, respectively) of each year. Imaging events per 1,000 beneficiaries increased progressively with increasing patient comorbidities (0 conditions, 511 events; 1-3 conditions, 2,033 events; 4-5 conditions, 3,188 events; 6+ conditions, 5,774 events). Imaging utilization was also higher in dual Medicaid eligibility beneficiaries than in others (3,855 versus 3,200 events) and in those eligible for Medicare owing to end-stage renal disease versus age or disability (7,876 versus 3,225 and 3,501, respectively). Imaging utilization showed additional variation with beneficiary age, gender, and ethnic group. CONCLUSIONS: In the Medicare population, the utilization of medical imaging varies greatly in association with a variety of patient and within-year temporal factors that have previously received little attention. As radiologists embark on risk-bearing contracts, the timing and length of such arrangements should be carefully considered, as well as specific features of the patient population attributed to their practices.

Improvements in prostate MR imaging techniques and the introduction of MR imaging-targeted biopsies have had central roles in prostate cancer (PCa) management. The role of MR imaging has progressed from largely staging patients with biopsy-proven PCa to detecting, characterizing, and guiding the biopsy of suspected PCa. These diagnostic advances, combined with improved therapeutic interventions, have led to a more sophisticated and individually tailored approach to patients' unique PCa profile. This review discusses the MR imaging, a standardized reporting scheme, and the role of fusion-targeted prostate biopsy.