Faculty Bibliography
Searched for:
person:rosena23
Total Results:
544
Differences in Perceptions Among Radiologists, Referring Physicians, and Patients Regarding Language for Incidental Findings Reporting
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to compare radiologists', referring physicians', and patients' interpretations of expressions within radiology reports to describe findings of likely low clinical significance. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Surveys were completed by abdominal radiologists (n = 13), physicians referring patients for abdominal CT (n = 59), and outpatients awaiting imaging (n = 51) at a large urban academic medical center. Surveys presented 10 expressions for describing an incidental 5-mm liver lesion and asked respondents to select from a list of choices their perceived likelihood that the lesion represented malignancy. Radiologists and referrers were asked supplemental questions. RESULTS: Compared with radiologists' concern, referrers' and patients' concerns were higher for four and seven of the 10 expressions. Only the expression "benign cyst" was associated with no concern in all groups; "most likely a cyst" and "too small to characterize" were associated with median levels of concern of 0% for radiologists, > 0% to 1% for referrers, and > 2% to 5% for patients. Expressions containing the phrase "not excluded" had the highest concern in all groups. Referrers' likelihood of ordering follow-up imaging varied widely for the expressions (e.g., "benign cyst," 2%; "cyst," 22%; "most likely a cyst," 46%; "most likely a cyst, although tumor not excluded," 75%). Overall, the preferred phrase for a 5-mm liver lesion with benign features in normal-risk patients was "cyst" among radiologists and "benign cyst" among referrers. Seventy-six percent of referring physicians thought that radiology reports should indicate whether follow-up imaging is recommended for such lesions. CONCLUSION: Ambiguity in radiologists' language for incidental low-risk findings may contribute to increased patient anxiety and follow-up testing, warranting greater radiologist attention and potentially new practice or reporting strategies.
PMID: 27657356
ISSN: 1546-3141
CID: 2254902
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
Detection of prostate cancer local recurrence following radical prostatectomy: assessment using a continuously acquired radial golden-angle compressed sensing acquisition
PURPOSE: To compare image quality and diagnostic performance for detecting local recurrence (LR) of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP) between standard dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a high spatiotemporal resolution, continuously acquired Golden-angle RAdial Sparse Parallel acquisition employing compressed sensing reconstruction ("GRASP"). METHODS: A search was conducted for prostate MRI examinations performed in patients with PSA >/=0.2 ng/mL after RP in whom follow-up evaluation allowed classification as positive (>/=50% PSA reduction after pelvic radiation or positive biopsy) or negative (<50% PSA reduction after pelvic radiation; spontaneous PSA normalization) for LR, yielding 13 patients with standard DCE (11 LR+) and 12 with GRASP (10 LR+). Standard DCE had voxel size 3.0 x 1.9 x 1.9 mm and temporal resolution 5.5 s. GRASP had voxel size 1.0 x 1.1 x 1.1 cm and was retrospectively reconstructed at 2.3 s resolution. Two radiologists evaluated DCE sequences for image quality measures (1-5 scale) and the presence of LR. RESULTS: GRASP achieved higher scores than standard DCE from both readers (p < 0.001-0.136) for anatomic clarity (R1: 4.4 +/- 0.8 vs. 2.8 +/- 0.67 R2: 4.8 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.2 +/- 0.6), sharpness (3.6 +/- 0.9 vs. 2.5 +/- 0.7; 4.6 +/- 0.5 vs. 2.6 +/- 0.5), confidence in interpretation (3.8 +/- 0.8 vs. 3.1 +/- 0.9; 3.8 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.1 +/- 1.2), and conspicuity of detected lesions (4.7 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.8 +/- 1.1; 4.5 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.8 +/- 1.0). For detecting LR, GRASP also achieved higher sensitivity (70% vs. 36%; 80% vs. 45%), specificity (R1 and R2: 100% vs. 50%), and accuracy (75% vs. 38%; 83% vs. 46%) for both readers. CONCLUSION: Although requiring larger studies, high spatiotemporal resolution GRASP achieved substantially better image quality and diagnostic performance than standard DCE for detecting LR in patients with elevated PSA after prostatectomy.
PMCID:5538362
PMID: 27576605
ISSN: 2366-0058
CID: 2232502
The utility of quantitative ADC values for differentiating high-risk from low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to perform a meta-analysis of studies investigating the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in separating high-risk from low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched in December 2015 for studies reporting diagnostic performance of ADC values for discriminating high-risk from low-risk PCa and providing sufficient data to construct 2 x 2 contingency tables. Diagnostic performance was quantitatively pooled using a bivariate random-effects model including subgroup analysis and assessment of study heterogeneity and methodological quality. RESULTS: 13 studies were included, providing 1107 tumor foci in 705 patients. Heterogeneity among studies was moderate (tau2 = 0.222). Overall sensitivity was 76.9% (95% CI 68.6-83.6%); overall specificity was 77.0% (95% CI 69.9-82.8%); and summary AUC was 0.67. Inverse correlation between sensitivity and specificity (rho = -0.58) indicated interstudy heterogeneity was partly due to variation in threshold for test positivity. Primary biases were readers' knowledge of Gleason score during ADC measurement, lack of prespecified ADC thresholds, and lack of prostatectomy as reference in some studies. Higher sensitivity was seen in studies published within the past 2 years and studies not using b value of at least 2000; higher specificity was associated with involvement of one, rather than two, readers measuring ADC. Field strength, coil selection, and advanced diffusion metrics did not significantly impact diagnostic performance. CONCLUSION: ADC values show moderate accuracy in separating high-risk from low-risk PCa, although important biases may overestimate performance and unexplained sources of heterogeneity likely exist. Further studies using a standardized methodology and addressing identified weaknesses may help guide the use of ADC values for clinical decision-making.
PMID: 27562768
ISSN: 2366-0058
CID: 2221672
Risk Stratification by Urinary PCA3 Testing Prior to MRI-US Fusion-Targeted Prostate Biopsy among Men with No Previous History of Biopsy
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a combination of PCA3 and MRI suspicion score (mSS) could further optimize detection of prostate cancer on MRF-TB among men with no previous history of biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 187 men presenting to our institution between 6/12 and 8/14 who underwent multiparametric MRI and PCA3 prior to MRF-TB. Biopsy results, stratified by biopsy indication and PCA3 score, were recorded. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and multivariable logistic regressions were utilized to model the association of PCA3 and mSS with cancer detection on MRF-TB. RESULTS: PCA3 is associated with cancer detection on MRF-TB for men with no prior biopsies (AUC = 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.76). Using a cutoff of >/=35, PCA3 was associated with cancer risk among men with mSS 2-3 (p=0.004), but not among those with mSS 4-5 (p=0.340). The interaction of PCA3 and mSS demonstrated significantly higher discrimination for cancer than mSS alone (AUC: 0.83 vs. 0.79, p=0.0434). CONCLUSIONS: Urinary PCA3 is associated with mSS and the detection of cancer on MRF-TB for men with no prior biopsies. PCA3 notably demonstrates a high negative predictive value among mSS 2-3. However, in the case of high suspicion mpMRI, PCA3 is not associated with cancer detection on MRF-TB adding little to cancer diagnosis. Further studies are needed to evaluate the utility of PCA3 in predicting cancer among men with normal mpMRI.
PMID: 27562202
ISSN: 1527-9995
CID: 2221652
Frequency and reasons for extra sequences in clinical abdominal MRI examinations
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to identify the frequency and reasons for extra sequences in clinical liver MRI and MRCP examinations. METHODS: A total of 250 consecutive liver MRI and 250 consecutive MRCP examinations performed at a single institution were reviewed. Extra sequences performed in comparison with our standard institutional protocol were identified. Reasons for the extra sequences were identified. Overall trends were assessed. RESULTS: In significantly greater fractions of exams (p = 0.009-0.030), MRCP had >/=1 extra sequence (40.8% vs. 29.2%) and >/=2 extra sequences (16.0% vs. 5.6%) than liver MRI. The average number of extra sequences was significantly higher (p = 0.004) for MRCP (0.73 +/- 1.2) than liver MRI (0.44 +/- 0.88). Reasons for extra sequences were as follows: sequence repeated for patient motion (33.8% for liver MRI; 31.9% for MRCP); sequence repeated for anatomic coverage (24.3% for liver MRI; 19.8% for MRCP); sequence added by the radiologist (15.3% for liver MRI; 33.0% for MRCP); sequence repeated for other reason (17.1% for liver MRI; 12.6% for MRCP); and sequence added by the technologist (5.4% for liver MRI; 2.7% for MRCP). The most commonly repeated sequence due to motion was the axial fat-saturated turbo spin-echo T2-weighted sequence for both liver MRI and MRCP (54.7% and 29.3% of sequences repeated due to motion, respectively). CONCLUSION: For liver MRI and MRCP exams, sequences were most often repeated due to motion artifact (most often occurring on TSE T2WI), and sequences were most often added by the radiologist. The findings may help guide sequence optimization, quality improvement initiatives, and standardization of operations, for improving efficiency in abdominal MRI workflow.
PMID: 27549101
ISSN: 2366-0058
CID: 2221432
Radial T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: Background, clinical applications, and future directions
ISI:000375233400006
ISSN: 0160-9963
CID: 2975402
Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR. 2016:13(11S):R89-R97.DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.09.033
Direct Interactive Public Education by Breast Radiologists About Screening Mammography: Impact on Anxiety and Empowerment
PURPOSE: Anxiety has been called a "harm" of screening mammography. The authors provided direct, interactive education to lay audiences and measured these sessions' impact on anxiety and any increased understanding of breast cancer screening. METHODS: Academic breast radiologist provided seven 1-hour sessions of structured lectures and question-and-answer periods. Lay language and radiologic images were used to discuss disease background, screening guidelines, and areas of debate. One hundred seventeen participants (mean age, 45 +/- 15 years) completed voluntary, anonymous, institutional review board-approved pre and postsession questionnaires relaying their attitudes regarding screening and the impact of the sessions. Results are summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Mean reported anxiety regarding screening (on a scale ranging from 1-5; 1 = no anxiety) was 2.5 +/- 1.3. Anxiety was attributed to unknown results (56.4%), anticipation of pain (21.8%), known risk factors (14.5%), general uncertainty (12.7%), waiting for results (9.1%), possibility of more procedures (3.6%), and personal breast cancer history (3.6%). Ninety-seven percent reported that immediate results would lower anxiety (78% of those women indicated a 75%-100% decrease in anxiety); 93% reported that radiologist consultation with images would lower anxiety (75.6% indicated a 75%-100% decrease in anxiety). After the lecture, women reported (on a scale ranging from 1-5) increased understanding of the topic (4.7 +/- 0.6), encouragement to screen (4.6 +/- 0.7), and reduced anxiety (4.0 +/- 1.1). Ninety-seven percent to 100% provided correct responses to these questions: rationale for screening in the absence of family history, recall does not equate to cancer diagnosis, benefit of prior films, and continued importance of physical examination. CONCLUSION: Attendees of radiologist-provided direct public lectures reported decreased anxiety and improved knowledge regarding screening mammography. The resultant reduced anxiety ("harm") and educational empowerment help enable informed decision making and may promote screening attendance.
PMID: 27814821
ISSN: 1558-349x
CID: 2303552
Reply to "Standardizing Biparametric MRI to Simplify and Improve Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, Version 2, in Prostate Cancer Management" [Letter]
PMID: 27385306
ISSN: 1546-3141
CID: 2282782
