Faculty Bibliography

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.

In early 2015, Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, described the federal administration's goals for delivery of health care in the United States. Prominently featured was a conversion from volume to value through the incorporation of Alternative Payment Models. The Department of Health and Human Services laid the framework, but recognized significant knowledge gaps in how providers and institutions would develop Alternative Payment Models. To that end, the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network was conceived. On March 25, 2015, the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network held its first meeting, which included a broad swath of industry participants. This collaboration was considered mission critical to achieving success in the goals of advancing Alternative Payment Models. This article highlights the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network and the framework it is proposing for Alternative Payment Models that would have meaningful implications for radiologists.

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.

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.