Faculty Bibliography

The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) is the result of an extensive international collaborative effort. PI-RADS provides a comprehensive yet practical set of guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging that will promote the use of this modality for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. The revised PI-RADS version (PI-RADS version 2) introduces important changes to the original system used for assessing the level of suspicion for clinically significant cancer with multiparametric MR imaging. For peripheral zone abnormalities in PI-RADS version 2, the score obtained from the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map in combination with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) performed with high b values (>/=1400 sec/mm2) is the dominant parameter for determining the overall level of suspicion for clinically significant cancer. For transition zone abnormalities, the score obtained from T2-weighted MR imaging is dominant for overall lesion assessment. Dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging has ancillary roles in the characterization of peripheral zone lesions considered equivocal for clinically significant cancer on the basis of the DWI-ADC combination and in the detection of lesions missed with other multiparametric MR pulse sequences. Assessment with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging is also simplified, being considered positive or negative on the basis of qualitative evaluation for a focal area of rapid enhancement matching an abnormality on DWI-ADC or T2-weighted MR images. In PI-RADS version 2, MR spectroscopic imaging is not incorporated into lesion assessment. In this article, a pictorial overview is provided of the revised PI-RADS version 2 assessment categories for the likelihood of clinically significant cancer. PI-RADS version 2 is expected to evolve with time, with updated versions being released as experience in the use of PI-RADS version 2 increases and as new scientific evidence and technologies emerge. (c)RSNA, 2016.

PURPOSE: Following an initial negative biopsy, there is an ongoing need for strategies to improve patient selection for repeat biopsy as well as the diagnostic yield from repeat biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a collaborative Initiative of the American Urological Association and the Society of Abdominal Radiology's Prostate Cancer Disease-Focused Panel, an expert panel of urologists and radiologists conducted a literature review and formed consensus statements regarding the role of prostate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy in patients with a negative biopsy, which are summarized in this review. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: s: The panel recognizes that many options exist for men with a previously negative biopsy. If a biopsy is recommended, prostate MRI and subsequent MRI-targeted cores appear to facilitate the detection of CS disease over standardized repeat biopsy. Thus, when high-quality prostate MRI is available, it should be strongly considered in any patient with a prior negative biopsy who has persistent clinical suspicion for prostate cancer and who is under evaluation for a possible repeat biopsy. The decision whether to perform MRI in this setting must also take into account results of any other biomarkers, the cost of the examination, as well as availability of high quality prostate MRI interpretation. If MRI is done, it should be performed, interpreted, and reported in accordance with PI-RADS V2 guidelines. Experience by the reporting radiologist and biopsy operator are required to achieve optimal results and practices integrating prostate MRI into patient management are advised to implement quality assurance programs to monitor targeted biopsy results. Patients receiving a PI-RADS assessment category of 3-5 warrant repeat biopsy with image guided targeting. While TRUS-MRI fusion or in-bore MRI-targeting may be valuable for more reliable targeting, especially for MRI lesions that are small or in difficult locations, in the absence of such targeting technologies, cognitive (visual) targeting remains a reasonable approach in skilled hands. At least two targeted cores should be obtained from each MRI-defined target. Given a number of studies showing a proportion of missed CS cancers by MRI-targeted cores, a case-specific decision must be made whether to also perform concurrent systematic sampling. However, performing solely targeted biopsy should only should be considered once quality assurance efforts have validated the performance of prostate MRI interpretations with results consistent with the published literature. In patients with a negative or low-suspicion MRI (PI-RADS assessment category of 1 or 2, respectively), other ancillary markers (i.e., PSA, PSAD, PSAV, PCA3, PHI, 4K) may be of value to identify patients warranting repeat systematic biopsy, although further data is needed on this topic. If a repeat biopsy is deferred on the basis of the MRI findings, then continued clinical and laboratory follow-up is advised and consideration should be given to incorporating repeat MRI in this diagnostic surveillance regimen.

PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with the patient experience in radiology based on patient feedback reports from a single institution. METHODS: In a departmental patient experience committee initiative, all imaging outpatients are provided names and roles of all departmental employees with whom they interact, along with contact information for providing feedback after their appointment. All resulting feedback was recorded in a web-based database. A total of 3,675 patient comments over a 3-year period were assessed in terms of major themes. Roles of employees recognized within the patient comments were also assessed. RESULTS: Patient feedback comments most commonly related to professional staff behavior (74.5%) and wait times (11.9%), and less commonly related to a spectrum of other issues (comfort during the exam, quality of the facilities, access to information regarding the exam, patient privacy, medical records, the radiology report, billing). The most common attributes relating to staff behavior involved patients' perceptions of staff caring, professionalism, pleasantness, helpfulness, and efficiency. Employees most commonly recognized by the comments were the technologist (50.2%) and receptionist (31.6%) and much less often the radiologist (2.2%). No radiologist was in the top 10% of employees in terms of the number of comments received. CONCLUSION: Patients' comments regarding their experiences in undergoing radiologic imaging were largely influenced by staff behavior and communication (particularly relating to technologists and receptionists), as well as wait times, with radiologists having a far lesser immediate impact. Radiologists are encouraged to engage in activities that promote direct visibility to their patients and thereby combat risks of the perceived "invisible" radiologist.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of imaging pathways in suspected acute appendicitis. METHODS: Computerized tomography (CT) alone, ultrasound alone, and ultrasound followed by CT were compared in 570 emergency department (ED) patients with suspected acute appendicitis. RESULTS: After initial ultrasound, 9.3% of men and 41.0% of women underwent CT. Body mass index (BMI) (P