Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:This study reports on the development of a novel 3D procedure planning technique to provide pre-ablation treatment planning for partial gland prostate cryoablation (cPGA). METHODS:Twenty men scheduled for partial gland cryoablation (cPGA) underwent pre-operative image segmentation and 3D modeling of the prostatic capsule, index lesion, urethra, rectum, and neurovascular bundles based upon multi-parametric MRI data. Pre-treatment 3D planning models were designed including virtual 3D cryotherapy probes to predict and plan cryotherapy probe configuration needed to achieve confluent treatment volume. Treatment efficacy was measured with 6 month post-operative MRI, serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) at 3 and 6 months, and treatment zone biopsy results at 6 months. Outcomes from 3D planning were compared to outcomes from a series of 20 patients undergoing cPGA using traditional 2D planning techniques. RESULTS:Forty men underwent cPGA. The median age of the cohort undergoing 3D treatment planning was 64.8 years with a median pretreatment PSA of 6.97 ng/mL. The Gleason grade group (GGG) of treated index lesions in this cohort included 1 (5%) GGG1, 11 (55%) GGG2, 7 (35%) GGG3, and 1 (5%) GGG4. Two (10%) of these treatments were post-radiation salvage therapies. The 2D treatment cohort included 20 men with a median age of 68.5 yrs., median pretreatment PSA of 6.76 ng/mL. The Gleason grade group (GGG) of treated index lesions in this cohort included 3 (15%) GGG1, 8 (40%) GGG2, 8 (40%) GGG3, 1 (5%) GGG4. Two (10%) of these treatments were post-radiation salvage therapies. 3D planning predicted the same number of cryoprobes for each group, however a greater number of cryoprobes was used in the procedure for the prospective 3D group as compared to that with 2D planning (4.10 ± 1.37 and 3.25 ± 0.44 respectively, p = 0.01). At 6 months post cPGA, the median PSA was 1.68 ng/mL and 2.38 ng/mL in the 3D and 2D cohorts respectively, with a larger decrease noted in the 3D cohort (75.9% reduction noted in 3D cohort and 64.8% reduction 2D cohort, p 0.48). In-field disease detection was 1/14 (7.1%) on surveillance biopsy in the 3D cohort and 3/14 (21.4%) in the 2D cohort, p = 0.056) In the 3D cohort, 6 month biopsy was not performed in 4 patients (20%) due to undetectable PSA, negative MRI, and negative MRI Axumin PET. For the group with traditional 2D planning, treatment zone biopsy was positive in 3/14 (21.4%) of the patients, p = 0.056. CONCLUSIONS:3D prostate cancer models derived from mpMRI data provide novel guidance for planning confluent treatment volumes for cPGA and predicted a greater number of treatment probes than traditional 2D planning methods. This study prompts further investigation into the use of 3D treatment planning techniques as the increase of partial gland ablation treatment protocols develop.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:In 2019, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services enforced regulation from the Affordable Care Act, requiring all U.S. hospitals to publish standard hospital charges annually. This study assesses top U.S academic hospitals' chargemasters for selected advanced diagnostic imaging services and the usability of publicly available information to allow consumers to determine out-of-pocket costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Publicly available chargemasters and associated websites for the top 20 ranked hospitals in U.S. News and World Report were assessed for several features including: file format, inclusion of CPT codes, disclaimers on charges versus costs and professional fees, and tools allowing determination of actual out-of-pocket costs for selected advanced diagnostic imaging examinations. RESULTS:All hospitals had publicly available chargemasters, 90% of which were in Microsoft Excel format. Ten percent of chargemasters included CPT codes. All chargemaster websites had disclaimers regarding differences between charges versus patient costs; 20% had disclaimers regarding professional fees. 20% of hospitals provided out-of-pocket costs for uninsured patients or tools allowing out-of-pocket cost determination. Median (range) MR exam charges were: brain with and without contrast: $5375 ($834-$13,857), noncontrast knee: $3402 (4530-$6924); noncontrast lumbar spine: $ 3449 ($473-$7367). Median (range) CT exam charges were: noncontrast head: $1923 ($165-$4974), noncontrast chest: $1947 ($282-$2991); contrast abdomen/pelvis: $4307 ($486-$11,726). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While all top-ranked hospitals had publicly available chargemasters, they rarely provided transparent information to allow patients to determine out-of-pocket costs for advanced diagnostic imaging services.

Editor's Note.-Articles in the RadioGraphics Update section provide current knowledge to supplement or update information found in full-length articles previously published in RadioGraphics. Authors of the previously published article provide a brief synopsis that emphasizes important new information such as technological advances, revised imaging protocols, new clinical guidelines involving imaging, or updated classification schemes. Articles in this section are published solely online and are linked to the original article.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To identify the frequency, source, and management impact of discrepancies between the initial radiology report and expert reinterpretation occurring in the context of a hepatobiliary multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB). METHODS:This retrospective study included 974 consecutive patients discussed at a weekly MTB at a large tertiary care academic medical center over a 2-year period. A single radiologist with dedicated hepatobiliary imaging expertise attended all conferences to review and discuss the relevant liver imaging and rated the concordance between original and re-reads based on RADPEER scoring criteria. Impact on management was based on the conference discussion and reflected changes in follow-up imaging, recommendations for biopsy/surgery, or liver transplant eligibility. RESULTS:Image reinterpretation was discordant with the initial report in 19.9% (194/974) of cases (59.8%, 34.5%, 5.7% RADPEER 2/3/4 discrepancies, respectively). A change in LI-RADS category occurred in 59.8% of discrepancies. Most common causes of discordance included re-classification of a lesion as benign rather than malignant (16.0%) and missed tumor recurrence (13.9%). Impact on management occurred in 99.0% of discordant cases and included loco-regional therapy instead of follow-up imaging (19.1%), follow-up imaging instead of treatment (17.5%), and avoidance of biopsy (12.4%). 11.3% received OPTN exception scores due to the revised interpretation, and 8.8% were excluded from listing for orthotopic liver transplant. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Even in a sub-specialized abdominal imaging academic practice, expert radiologist review in the MTB setting identified discordant interpretations and impacted management in a substantial fraction of patients, potentially impacting transplant allocation. The findings may impact how abdominal imaging sections best staff advanced MTBs.

OBJECTIVE. In recent decades, teleradiology has expanded considerably, and many radiology practices now engage in intraorganizational or extraorganizational teleradiology. In this era of patient primacy, optimizing patient care and care delivery is paramount. This article provides an update on recent changes, current challenges, and future opportunities centered around the ability of teleradiology to improve temporal and geographic imaging access. We review licensing and regulations and discuss teleradiology in providing services to rural areas and assisting with disaster response, including the response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. CONCLUSION. Teleradiology can help increase imaging efficiency and mitigate both geographic and temporal discrepancies in imaging care. Technologic limitations and regulatory hurdles hinder the optimal practice of teleradiology, and future attention to these issues may help ensure broader patient access to high-quality imaging across the United States.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To demonstrate the generalizability of PRECISION findings and apply the PRECISION biopsy strategy to a contemporary cohort to characterize cancers missed by employing this strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:629 men biopsied between 2/2015-9/2018 met PRECISION inclusion criteria. Men with PI-RADS 1-2 MRI were only biopsied if high clinical suspicion for cancer. Missed cancers were defined as prostate cancer (PCa) identified uniquely on systematic biopsy (SB) in men with PI-RADS 3-5 MRI, or on either SB or MRI-targeted prostate biopsy (MRI-TB) in men with PI-RADS 1-2 MRI. Outcomes included 1) clinically-significant PCa (csPCa), ≥Gleason grade group (GG) 2, detection rate (CDR), 2) missed csPCa rate upon application of PRECISION biopsy strategy, 3) GG distribution, core size, spatial orientation, and oncologic risk among missed cancers. RESULTS:Application of the PRECISION biopsy strategy to the study cohort resulted in avoidance of biopsy in 28%, similar MRI-TB CDR to PRECISION, reduction of GG1 CDR by 60%, and reduction of csPCa CDR by 19%. Missed csPCa were often <6 mm (54.5%), GG2 (67.3%), and low-risk by clinical nomogram (74.6%). GG1 cancers identified uniquely on SB were often contralateral to MRI target (46.4%), while missed csPCa was predominantly ipsilateral (81%). Limitations include biopsy of only men with high-risk clinical features among PIRADS 1-2 MRI, potentially overestimating the csPCa CDR. CONCLUSIONS:The study cohort demonstrated generalizability of PRECISION findings. Applying the PRECISION biopsy strategy greatly reduces GG1 CDR, while missing a small number of csPCa, typically small volume, low-risk, and GG2. Missed csPCa are predominantly ipsilateral to MRI target, possibly representing targeting error.

OBJECTIVE:Women are highly underrepresented among leadership positions within radiology research, disproportionate to their underrepresentation in radiology overall. We sought to identify the causes and solutions of such disparity at the personal, organizational, and institutional levels among female radiology researchers who are leaders in the field. SUBJECTS AND METHODS/METHODS:We used purposive sampling to identify nationally recognized female leaders in radiology research. We developed a semistructured interview guide and conducted in-depth one-on-one telephone interviews with participants (n = 16) that ranged from 36 to 65 min. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed by two researchers trained in qualitative methods using Saldana's first- and second-cycle coding method. Themes were identified using a grounded theory approach to identify meaningful patterns that addressed the research question. RESULTS:Participants identified barriers to their professional development and success, including personal and professional obstacles often associated with work-life balance and the nonlinear nature of women's careers due to caregiving responsibilities. Participants also identified facilitators of success that operated at the individual, organizational, and institutional level, such as purposeful networking, having an advocate, and participating in leadership events. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study represents the first effort to qualitatively capture the facilitators of success for nationally recognized female radiology researchers. Findings suggest that synergistic efforts can be undertaken by early-career female radiologists and their colleagues, national radiology organizations, and academic institutions to systematically enable the inclusion and participation of women. The field of radiology should consider how to work dynamically at multiple levels to implement the identified potential changes.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of English proficiency on abdominal MRI imaging quality. METHODS:Three equal-sized cohorts of patients undergoing 3T abdominal MRI were identified based on English proficiency as documented in the EMR: Primary language of English; English as a second language (ESL)/no translator needed; or ESL, translator needed (42 patients per cohort for total study size of 126 patients). Three radiologists independently used a 1-5 Likert scale to assess respiratory motion and image quality on turbo spin-echo T2WI and post-contrast T1WI. Groups were compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS:For T2WI respiratory motion, all three readers scored the Translator group significantly worse than the English and ESL/no-Translator groups (mean scores across readers of 2.98 vs. 3.58 and 3.51; p values < 0.001-0.008). For T2WI overall image quality, all three readers also scored the Translator group significantly worse than the English and ESL/no-Translator groups (2.77 vs. 3.28 and 3.31; p values 0.002-0.005). For T1WI respiratory motion, mean scores were not significantly different between groups (English: 4.14, ESL/no-Translator: 4.02, Translator: 3.94; p values 0.398-0.597). For T1WI overall image quality, mean scores also were not significantly different (4.09, 3.99, and 3.95, respectively; p values 0.369-0.831). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Abdominal MR examinations show significantly worse T2WI respiratory motion and overall image quality when requiring a translator, even compared with non-translator exams in non-English primary language patients. Strategies are warranted to improve coordination among MR technologists, translators, and non-English speaking patients undergoing abdominal MR, to ensure robust image quality in this vulnerable patient population.