Faculty Bibliography

Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) are burgeoning technologies that have the potential to greatly enhance patient care. Visualizing patient-specific three-dimensional (3D) imaging data in these enhanced virtual environments may improve surgeons' understanding of anatomy and surgical pathology, thereby allowing for improved surgical planning, superior intra-operative guidance, and ultimately improved patient care. It is important that radiologists are familiar with these technologies, especially since the number of institutions utilizing VR and AR is increasing. This article gives an overview of AR and VR and describes the workflow required to create anatomical 3D models for use in AR using the Microsoft HoloLens device. Case examples in urologic oncology (prostate cancer and renal cancer) are provided which depict how AR has been used to guide surgery at our institution.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to temporally characterize radiologist participation in Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organizations (ACOs). METHODS:Using CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use Files, ACO provider-level Research Identifiable Files, and Shared Savings Program ACO Public-Use Files for 2013 through 2018, characteristics of radiologist ACO participation were assessed over time. RESULTS:Between 2013 and 2018, the percentage of Medicare-participating radiologists affiliated with MSSP ACOs increased from 10.4% to 34.9%. During that time, the share of large ACOs (>20,000 beneficiaries) with participating radiologists averaged 87.0%, while the shares of medium ACOs (10,000-20,000) and small ACOs (<10,000) with participating radiologists rose from 62.5% to 66.0% and from 26.3% to 51.6%, respectively. The number of physicians in MSSP ACOs with radiologists was substantially larger than those without radiologists (mean range across years, 573-945 vs. 107-179). Primary care physicians constituted a larger percentage of the physician population for ACOs without radiologists (average across years, 66.3% vs 38.5%), while ACOs with radiologists had a higher rate of specialist representation (56.0% vs 33.7%). Beneficiary age, race, and gender demographics were similar among radiologist-participating versus nonparticipating ACOs. CONCLUSIONS:In recent years, radiologist participation in MSSP ACOs has increased substantially. ACOs with radiologist participation are large and more diverse in their physician specialty composition. Nonparticipating radiologists should prepare accordingly.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To retrospectively analyze the nature and extent of oncology-related errors accounting for malpractice allegations in diagnostic radiology. METHODS:The Comparative Benchmarking System of the Controlled Risk Insurance Company, a database containing roughly 30% of medical malpractice claims in the United States, was searched retrospectively for the period 2008 to 2017. Claims naming radiology as a primary service were identified and were stratified and compared by oncologic versus nononcologic status, allegation type (diagnostic versus nondiagnostic), and imaging modality. RESULTS:Over the 10-year period, radiology was the primary responsible service for 3.9% of all malpractice claims (2,582 of 66,061) and 12.8% of claims with diagnostic allegations (1,756 of 13,695). Oncology (neoplasms) accounted for 44.0% of radiology cases with diagnostic allegations, a larger share than any other category of medical condition. Among radiology cases with diagnostic allegations, high-severity harm occurred in 79% of oncologic but just 42% of nononcologic cases. Of all oncologic radiology cases, 97.4% had diagnostic allegations, and just 55.0% of nononcologic radiology cases had diagnostic allegations. Imaging misinterpretation was a contributing factor for a large majority (80.7% [623 of 772]) of oncologic radiology cases with diagnostic allegations. The modalities most commonly used in oncologic radiology cases with diagnostic allegations involving misinterpretation were mammography, CT, and MRI. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Oncology represents the most common source of radiology malpractice cases with diagnostic allegations. Oncologic radiology malpractice cases are more likely than nononcologic radiology cases to be due to diagnostic errors and be associated with high-severity harm. Efforts are warranted to reduce misinterpretations of oncologic imaging.

Background Factors affecting radiologists' performance in screening mammography interpretation remain poorly understood. Purpose To identify radiologists characteristics that affect screening mammography interpretation performance. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 1223 radiologists in the National Mammography Database (NMD) from 2008 to 2019 who could be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) datasets. NMD screening performance metrics were extracted. Acceptable ranges were defined as follows: recall rate (RR) between 5% and 12%; cancer detection rate (CDR) of at least 2.5 per 1000 screening examinations; positive predictive value of recall (PPV1) between 3% and 8%; positive predictive value of biopsies recommended (PPV2) between 20% and 40%; positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3) between the 25th and 75th percentile of study sample; invasive CDR of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample; and percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample. Radiologist characteristics extracted from CMS datasets included demographics, subspecialization, and clinical practice patterns. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression models were performed to identify characteristics independently associated with acceptable performance for the seven metrics. The most influential characteristics were defined as those independently associated with the majority of the metrics (at least four). Results Relative to radiologists practicing in the Northeast, those in the Midwest were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV1, PPV2, and CDR (odds ratio [OR], 1.4-2.5); those practicing in the West were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV2, and PPV3 (OR, 1.7-2.1) but less likely to achieve acceptable invasive CDR (OR, 0.6). Relative to general radiologists, breast imagers were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, invasive CDR, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 1.4-4.4). Those performing diagnostic mammography were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, PPV3, invasive CDR, and CDR (OR, 1.9-2.9). Those performing breast US were less likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 0.5-0.7). Conclusion The geographic location of the radiology practice, subspecialization in breast imaging, and performance of diagnostic mammography are associated with better screening mammography performance; performance of breast US is associated with lower performance. ^©RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To assess gender balance amongst invited speakers at 2 national radiology conferences over the past decade. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:The 2009, 2014, and 2019 Association of University Radiologists (AUR) and American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) conference programs were evaluated for the number and gender of invited speakers, as well as various presentation characteristics. Gender balance was stratified across conferences and years. RESULTS:The final analysis included 1657 invited speakers and 45, 602 minutes of presentation. AUR showed a nonsignificant increase in the percent of presentations by women from 42.2% to 46.5% and in the percent of distinct female presenters from 41.6% to 46.0%. For ARRS, percentage of female presenters varied minimally from 36.1% to 38.2%. In AUR 2009, female presenters spoke on average 5.7min less than men (P= 0.042) and 6.5% of women gave lectures over 30 minutes vs 22.2% of men (P = 0.032). Subsequent AUR and ARRS conferences did not demonstrate presentation length disparities. For AUR, no keynote female speaker was identified. For ARRS, there was no significant difference in percentage of keynote speakers based on gender (P ≥0.516). A disproportionately high percentage of presentations before 8am (44.4%-66.7%) were by women. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Female representation was greater than among the overall radiology workforce, highlighting a role of national societies in promoting female radiologists. Nonetheless, such representation is confounded by disproportionate underrepresentation in visibility of invited talks. While improvement in some presentation measures were observed, continued efforts are warranted to promote equal opportunities for female radiologists at national conferences.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Lumbar punctures may be performed by many different types of health care providers. We evaluated the percentages of lumbar punctures performed by radiologists-versus-nonradiologist providers, including changes with time and discrepancies between specialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS:< .001). CONCLUSIONS:Radiologists now perform most lumbar puncture procedures for Medicare beneficiaries in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. The continuing shift in lumbar puncture responsibility from other specialists to radiologists has implications for clinical workflows, cost, radiation exposure, and postgraduate training.