Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the utility of a quality improvement (QI) initiative in achieving long-term adherence to an evolving structured format for reporting the level of suspicion for tumor on prostate MRI examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The original QI initiative occurred over a 4-month period in 2010, before which prostate MRI was reported using free text. The initiative consisted of development of a section-wide macro, an initial group training session, ordering physician input regarding the structured report's value, subsequent weekly sessions for ongoing review, and timely individualized feedback in instances of nonuse. The initial structured report included pick lists for describing the level of suspicion for tumor as negative, low, medium, or high. Pick lists were modified in 2011 to incorporate a 5-point Likert scale and again in 2015 to incorporate Prostate Imaging Data and Reporting System (PI-RADS) version 2. These refinements were implemented after accelerated training periods. The frequency of reports providing an MRI-based suspicion level during these periods was assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of reports provided an MRI-based level of suspicion for tumor before the initiative. For various cohorts evaluated after the initiative (using structured reports based on the low, medium, or high scheme; a numeric Likert scale; or PI-RADS), this frequency improved to 95-100% (p < 0.001). Among reports without a suspicion level, potential confounding factors included marked artifact from hip prosthesis and overt diffuse tumor. CONCLUSION: The QI initiative achieved excellent adherence in reporting a suspicion level for tumor on prostate MRI examinations. The described components of the initiative were useful for maintaining long-term adherence that persisted after serial modifications to the report lexicon.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize associations between availability of imaging services and intensity of teaching among US hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database, we studied information regarding the availability of imaging services at general hospitals nationwide in 2007 (4102 hospitals) and in 2012 (3876). Teaching intensity was categorized as Council of Teaching Hospitals (COTH) member, non-COTH teaching hospital (non-COTH member with affiliated medical school and/or residency), and nonteaching hospital. Availability in hospitals of reported basic and advanced imaging modalities, as well as beds, number of employed physicians, and case mix index, was analyzed. Univariable and multivariable trends were assessed. RESULTS: All 15 assessed modalities showed significant increases in availability with increasing hospital teaching intensity (P < 0.001). Modalities showing the largest differences between COTH and nonteaching hospitals in 2012 were image-guided radiation therapy (78% vs. 14%), positron emission tomography/computed tomography (74% vs. 17%), and single-photon emission computed tomography (88% vs. 35%). The gap between COTH and nonteaching hospitals increased from 43% in 2007 to 57% in 2012 for positron emission tomography/computed tomography, and from 34% to 48% for virtual colonoscopy. COTH status was a significant predictor, independent of beds and employed physicians, for 10 modalities (P < 0.001-0.038). Greater case mix index was significantly associated with availability of advanced, although not basic, modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Availability of imaging services increased with greater hospital teaching intensity. Differences were most pronounced and sustained over time for advanced modalities. Our findings reflect the greater advanced imaging resources necessary to support the complexity of care rendered at teaching hospitals. This differential must be considered when exploring adjustments to teaching hospitals' funding levels.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report the investigators' preliminary experience in the implementation of a "virtual consult" (VC) system enabling consultations between radiologists and referring physicians in physically remote locations throughout their enterprise. METHODS: Referrers and radiologists directly access the VC through the electronic medical record and PACS, respectively. Referrers may click a VC link associated with any examination report to instant message the appropriate subspecialist radiologist, who receives an alert allowing automatic loading of the examination. The radiologist and referrer may then discuss the examination via instant messaging as well as launch a real-time screen-share of the radiologist's PACS display, with the option for either participant to control the display. Radiologists' and referrers' feedback was evaluated after the institution's first 110 VC sessions. RESULTS: Referrers' most common specialties were emergency medicine (27.3%) and internal medicine (13.6%); radiologists' most common subspecialties were abdominal (33.6%) and thoracic (16.4%) imaging. Screen-shares lasted on average 12 +/- 16 minutes. From 80% to 90% of referrers agreed that the VC was easy to use, improved their understanding of the radiology report, affected patient management, and enhanced radiologists' role. Referrers found the VC to be particularly useful when traditional consultation was difficult because of location or time constraints or when seeking a quick response to a targeted question. Radiologists recognized referrers' positive response to the VC, although they tended to view the VC as disruptive to normal workflow. CONCLUSIONS: The VC addresses a key challenge in the current era of digital radiology practice and provides added value to referrers, though continued radiologists' workflow optimization is warranted.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to assess the potential usefulness of written instructional vignettes relating to publication and journalism ethics in radiology via a survey of radiology trainees. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review was conducted to guide the development of vignettes, each describing a scenario relating to an ethical issue in research and publication, with subsequent commentary on the underlying ethical issue and potential approaches to its handling. Radiology trainees at a single institution were surveyed regarding the vignettes' perceived usefulness. RESULTS: A total of 21 vignettes were prepared, addressing institutional review board and human subjects protection, authorship issues, usage of previous work, manuscript review, and other miscellaneous topics. Of the solicited trainees, 24.7% (16/65) completed the survey. On average among the vignettes, 94.0% of the participants found the vignette helpful; 19.9 received prior formal instruction on the issue during medical training; 40.0% received prior informal guidance from a research mentor; and 42.0% indicated that the issue had arisen in their own or a peer's prior research experience. The most common previously experienced specific issue was authorship order (93.8%). Free-text responses were largely favorable regarding the value of the vignettes, although also indicated numerous challenges in properly handling the ethical issues: impact of hierarchy, pressure to publish, internal politics, reluctance to conduct sensitive conversations with colleagues, and variability in journal and professional society policies. CONCLUSION: Radiology trainees overall found the vignettes helpful, addressing commonly encountered topics for which formal and informal guidance were otherwise lacking. The vignettes are publicly available through the Association of University Radiologists (AUR) website and may foster greater insights by investigators into ethical aspects of the publication and journalism process, thus contributing to higher quality radiology research.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Whereas data support the h index (reflecting both publications and citations) as an indicator of academic productivity, other advanced bibliometric indices aiming to address shortcomings of the h index remain poorly studied. Our objective was to compare the associations between bibliometric indices and total National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding among investigators within U.S. academic radiology departments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: NIH grant funding amounts for 400 NIH-funded investigators within radiology departments were obtained from Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research. Investigators' publications and associated citations were identified using Scopus. Indices computed for each investigator included: publication count, citation count, h index, i-10 index, hc index (h index adjusted for recency of publications), m quotient (h index adjusted for career duration), and e index and g index (both account for highly cited articles). Spearman correlations were performed between indices and funding. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify significant independent predictors of funding. RESULTS: For MD investigators: the indices exhibited no-to-weak correlations with funding (r = 0.173-0.387); m quotient exhibited the largest correlation and was the only significant (albeit weak) independent predictor of funding (P = 0.011). For PhD investigators: correlation with funding was weak for m quotient (r = 0.323), although moderate for other indices (r = 0.518-0.568); publication count exhibited highest correlation; publication count (P < 0.001) and hc index (P = 0.024) were significant independent predictors of funding. CONCLUSIONS: Bibliometric indices were more strongly associated with grant funding for PhD than for MD radiology investigators, with publication count exhibiting the strongest association in the latter group. Time-weighted adjustments, as reflected by the m quotient and hc index, may improve efforts to predict funding using bibliometrics.

Purpose To determine the interobserver reproducibility of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 lexicon. Materials and Methods This retrospective HIPAA-compliant study was institutional review board-approved. Six radiologists from six separate institutions, all experienced in prostate magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, assessed prostate MR imaging examinations performed at a single center by using the PI-RADS lexicon. Readers were provided screen captures that denoted the location of one specific lesion per case. Analysis entailed two sessions (40 and 80 examinations per session) and an intersession training period for individualized feedback and group discussion. Percent agreement (fraction of pairwise reader combinations with concordant readings) was compared between sessions. kappa coefficients were computed. Results No substantial difference in interobserver agreement was observed between sessions, and the sessions were subsequently pooled. Agreement for PI-RADS score of 4 or greater was 0.593 in peripheral zone (PZ) and 0.509 in transition zone (TZ). In PZ, reproducibility was moderate to substantial for features related to diffusion-weighted imaging (kappa = 0.535-0.619); fair to moderate for features related to dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) imaging (kappa = 0.266-0.439); and fair for definite extraprostatic extension on T2-weighted images (kappa = 0.289). In TZ, reproducibility for features related to lesion texture and margins on T2-weighted images ranged from 0.136 (moderately hypointense) to 0.529 (encapsulation). Among 63 lesions that underwent targeted biopsy, classification as PI-RADS score of 4 or greater by a majority of readers yielded tumor with a Gleason score of 3+4 or greater in 45.9% (17 of 37), without missing any tumor with a Gleason score of 3+4 or greater. Conclusion Experienced radiologists achieved moderate reproducibility for PI-RADS version 2, and neither required nor benefitted from a training session. Agreement tended to be better in PZ than TZ, although was weak for DCE in PZ. The findings may help guide future PI-RADS lexicon updates. (c) RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the trends in the impact factor (IF) of radiological journals over a recent 12-year period, including associations between IF and journal topic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Journal Citation Reports (JCR) was used to identify all biomedical journals and all radiological journals (assigned a JCR category of "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, & Medical Imaging"), along with journal IF, in 2003 and 2014. Radiological journals were manually classified by topic. Trends in median IF (mIF) were assessed. RESULTS: The number of radiological journals increased from 83 (2003) to 125 (2014) (all biomedical journals: 5907 to 8718, respectively). mIF of radiological journals increased from 1.42 (2003) to 1.75 (2014) (all biomedical journals: 0.93 to 1.46, respectively). The most common topic among new radiological journals was general (nonspecialized) radiology (8). Five new radiological journals in 2014 were in topics (cancer imaging and molecular imaging) having no journals in 2003. mIF of general radiological journals was 1.49. Topics having highest mIF were cardiac imaging (2.94), optics (2.86), molecular imaging (2.77), radiation oncology (2.60), and neuroradiology (2.25). Topics with lowest mIF were ultrasound (1.19) and interventional radiology (1.44). Topics with the largest increase in mIF were cardiac imaging (from 1.17 to 2.94) and neuroradiology (from 1.07 to 2.25). CONCLUSIONS: Radiological journals exhibited higher mIF than biomedical journals overall. Among radiological journals, subspecialty journals had highest mIF. While a considerable number of new radiological journals since 2003 were general radiology journals having relatively low IF, there were also new journal topics representing emerging areas of subspecialized radiological research.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess prostate cancer detection using a broad range of computed b-values up to 5000 s/mm2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study was approved by an institutional review board with consent waiver. Forty-nine patients (63 +/- 8 years) underwent 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging before prostatectomy. Examinations included diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with b-values of 50 and 1000 s/mm2. Seven computed DWI image sets (b-values: 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000, 4000, and 5000 s/mm2) were generated by mono-exponential fit. Two blinded radiologists (R1 [attending], R2 [fellow]) independently evaluated diffusion weighted image sets for image quality and dominant lesion location. A separate unblinded radiologist placed regions of interest to measure tumor-to-peripheral zone (PZ) contrast. Pathologic findings from prostatectomy served as reference standard. Measures were compared between b-values using the Jonckheere-Terpstra trend test, Spearman correlation coefficient, and generalized estimating equations based on logistic regression for correlated data. RESULTS: As b-value increased, tumor-to-PZ contrast and benign prostate suppression for both readers increased (r = +0.65 to +0.71, P 6 tumor was highest for R1 at b1500-3000 (90%-93%) and for R2 at 1500-2500 (78%-80%). The positive predictive value for tumor for R1 was similar from b1000 to 4000 (93%-98%) and for R2 was similar from b1500 to 4000 (88%-94%). CONCLUSIONS: Computed b-values in the range of 1500-2500 s/mm2 (but not higher) were optimal for prostate cancer detection; b-values of 1000 or 3000-5000 exhibited overall lower performance.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to highlight the potential challenges associated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2 (PI-RADS v2), and to offer, when possible, suggestions and ideas for improvement. CONCLUSION: PI-RADS v2 offers clear improvements to its earlier version and will greatly benefit the prostate MRI community. Nonetheless, caution remains on the basis of early user experience, and potential ambiguities and gaps of PI-RADS v2 are noted. Continued data-driven clarification and refinement of the guidelines will be invaluable for PI-RADS v2 to achieve its goal of improving patient care.