Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: To evaluate whole-lesion ADC histogram metrics for assessing the malignant potential of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), including in comparison with conventional MRI features. METHODS: Eighteen branch-duct IPMNs underwent MRI with DWI prior to resection (n = 16) or FNA (n = 2). A blinded radiologist placed 3D volumes-of-interest on the entire IPMN on the ADC map, from which whole-lesion histogram metrics were generated. The reader also assessed IPMN size, mural nodularity, and adjacent main-duct dilation. Benign (low-to-intermediate grade dysplasia; n = 10) and malignant (high-grade dysplasia or invasive adenocarcinoma; n = 8) IPMNs were compared. RESULTS: Whole-lesion ADC histogram metrics demonstrating significant differences between benign and malignant IPMNs were: entropy (5.1 +/- 0.2 vs. 5.4 +/- 0.2; p = 0.01, AUC = 86%); mean of the bottom 10th percentile (2.2 +/- 0.4 vs. 1.6 +/- 0.7; p = 0.03; AUC = 81%); and mean of the 10-25th percentile (2.8 +/- 0.4 vs. 2.3 +/- 0.6; p = 0.04; AUC = 79%). The overall mean ADC, skewness, and kurtosis were not significantly different between groups (p >/= 0.06; AUC = 50-78%). For entropy (highest performing histogram metric), an optimal threshold of >5.3 achieved a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 70%, and an accuracy of 83% for predicting malignancy. No significant difference (p = 0.18-0.64) was observed between benign and malignant IPMNs for cyst size >/=3 cm, adjacent main-duct dilatation, or mural nodule. At multivariable analysis of entropy in combination with all other ADC histogram and conventional MRI features, entropy was the only significant independent predictor of malignancy (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Although requiring larger studies, ADC entropy obtained from 3D whole-lesion histogram analysis may serve as a biomarker for identifying the malignant potential of IPMNs, independent of conventional MRI features.

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.

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.

PURPOSE: The Internet provides a potentially valuable mechanism for radiology practices to communicate with patients and enhance the patient experience. The aim of this study was to assess the websites of US radiology private practices, with attention to the frequency of content of potential patient interest. METHODS: The 50 largest private practice radiology facilities in the United States were identified from RadiologyBusiness.com. Websites were reviewed for information content and functionality. RESULTS: Content regarding radiologists' names, medical schools, residencies, fellowships, photographs, and board certification status; contact for billing questions; and ability to make online payments was present on 80% to 98% of sites. Content regarding examination preparation, contrast use, examination duration, description of examination experience, scheduling information, directions, privacy policy, radiologists' role in interpretation, and ACR accreditation was present on 60% to 78%. Content regarding accepted insurers, delivery of results to referrers, report turnaround times, radiologists' years of experience, radiation safety, and facility hours was present on 40% to 58%. Content regarding technologist certification, registration forms, instructions for requesting a study on disc, educational videos, and patient testimonials was present on 20% to 38%. Content regarding examination prices, patient satisfaction scores, peer review, online scheduling, online report and image access, and parking was present on <20%. CONCLUSIONS: Radiology practices' websites most frequently provided information regarding their radiologists' credentials, as well as billing and payment options. Information regarding quality, safety, and the examination experience, as well as non-payment-related online functionality, was less common. These findings regarding the most common deficiencies may be useful for radiology practices in expanding their websites' content, thereby improving communication and potentially the patient experience.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the roles of self-directed learning and continual feedback in the learning curve for tumor detection by novice readers of prostate MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 124 prostate MRI examinations classified as positive (n = 52; single Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] category 3 or higher lesion showing Gleason score >/= 7 tumor at MRI-targeted biopsy) or negative (n = 72; PI-RADS category 2 or lower and negative biopsy) for detectable tumor were included. These were divided into four equal-sized batches, each with matching numbers of positive and negative examinations. Six second-year radiology residents reviewed examinations to localize tumors. Three of the six readers received feedback after each examination showing the preceding case's solution. The learning curve, plotting accuracy over time, was assessed by the Akaike information criterion (AIC). Logistic regression and mixed-model ANOVA were performed. RESULTS: For readers with and without feedback, the learning curve exhibited an initial rapid improvement that slowed after 40 examinations (change in AIC > 0.2%). Accuracy improved from 58.1% (batch 1) to 71.0-75.3% (batches 2-4) without feedback and from 58.1% to 72.0-77.4% with feedback (p = 0.027-0.046), without a difference in the extent of improvement (p = 0.800). Specificity improved from 53.7% to 68.5-81.5% without feedback and from 55.6% to 74.1-81.5% with feedback (p = 0.006-0.010), without a difference in the extent of improvement (p = 0.891). Sensitivity improved from 59.0-61.5% (batches 1-2) to 71.8-76.9% (batches 3-4) with feedback (p = 0.052), though did not improve without feedback (p = 0.602). Sensitivity for transition zone tumors exhibited larger changes (p = 0.024) with feedback than without feedback. Sensitivity for peripheral zone tumors did not improve in either group (p > 0.3). Reader confidence increased only with feedback (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The learning curve in prostate tumor detection largely reflected self-directed learning. Continual feedback had a lesser effect. Clinical prostate MRI interpretation by novice radiologists warrants caution.

PURPOSE: In implementing the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), CMS will provide special considerations to physicians with infrequent face-to-face patient encounters by reweighting MIPS performance categories to account for the unique circumstances facing these providers. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of varying criteria on the fraction of radiologists who are likely to receive special considerations for performance assessment under MIPS. METHODS: Data from the 2014 Medicare Physician and Other Supplier file for 28,710 diagnostic radiologists were used to determine the fraction of radiologists meeting various proposed criteria for receiving special considerations. For each definition, the fraction of patient-facing encounters among all billed codes was determined for those radiologists not receiving special considerations. RESULTS: When using the criterion proposed by CMS that physicians will receive special considerations if billing