Faculty Bibliography

To assess changing utilization of extremity angiography from 2001 to 2016, focusing on modalities and provider specialties. Medicare PSPS Master Files from 2001-2016 and POSPUF from 2016 were used to determine overall and specialty utilization of diagnostic catheter angiography (DCA), CT angiography (CTA), and MR angiography (MRA). From 2001 to 2016, extremity angiography increased from 1107 to 1590 extremities imaged per 100,000 beneficiaries, with rapid expansion of CTA (22 in 2001 to 619 in 2009; plateau of 645 in 2016), but declines in DCA (1039 to 914) and MRA (45 to 30). Over time, extremity angiography shifted from 94% DCA, 4% MRA, and 2% CTA to 58% DCA, 41% CTA, and 2% MRA. For radiologists, extremity angiography increased slightly (741 to 767) with increases in CTA (20 to 595) and large decreases in DCA (681 to 145), with MRA remaining low (40 to 27). Extremity angiography increased for cardiologists (197 to 349) and vascular surgeons (87 to 351), both overwhelmingly performing DCA. Radiologists' share of all extremity angiography shifted from 67% to 48%, with interventionalists (47%), generalists (43%), and abdominal radiologists (7.4%) providing most radiologist services in 2016. Throughout, radiologists were the dominant providers of CTA (89% to 92%) and MRA (89% to 90%). Extremity angiography utilization in Medicare beneficiaries increased nearly 50% from 2001 to 2016, largely related to CTA performed by radiologists. Of radiologists, interventionalists and generalists together render most services. Cardiologists and surgeons assumed a large share of DCA previously performed by radiologists.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess recent trends and characteristics in radiologist-practice separation across the United States. METHODS:Using the Medicare Physician Compare and Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File data sets, we linked all radiologists to associated group practices annually between 2014 and 2018 and assessed radiologist-practice separation over a variety of physician and group characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to estimate the likelihood of radiologist-practice separation. RESULTS:Of 25,228 unique radiologists associated with 4,381 unique group practices, 41.1% separated from at least one group practice between 2014 and 2018, and annual separation rates increased 38.4% over time (13.8% from 2014 to 2015 to 19.2% from 2017 to 2018). Radiologist-practice separation rates ranged from 57.4% in Utah to 26.3% in Virginia. Separation rates were 42.8% for general radiologists versus 38.2% for subspecialty radiologists. Among subspecialists, separation rates ranged from 43.0% for breast imagers to 33.5% for cardiothoracic radiologists. Early career status (odds ratio [OR] = 1.286) and late (OR = 1.554) career status were both independent positive predictors of radiologist-practice separation (both P < .001). Larger practice size (OR = 0.795), radiology-only (versus multispecialty) group (OR = 0.468), academic (versus nonacademic) practice (OR = 0.709), and abdominal (OR = 0.820), musculoskeletal (OR = 0.659), and neuroradiology (OR = 0.895) subspecialization were independent negative predictors (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS:With over 40% of radiologists separating from at least one practice in recent years, the US radiologist workforce is highly and increasingly mobile. Because reasons for separation (eg, resignation, practice acquisition) cannot be assessed using administrative data, further attention is warranted given the manifold financial, operational, and patient care implications.

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.