Faculty Bibliography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Occupational "horizontal segregation," defined as disparity in the distribution of responsibilities between genders, could discourage women from seeking careers in radiology, as well as impact women within radiology in terms of compensation, promotion, and career advancement. We aimed to explore the existence of horizontal workplace segregation in radiology, as potentially manifested as intergender differences in the distribution of clinical work effort among imaging modalities for radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Medicare-participating general radiologists, neuroradiologists, abdominal, cardiothoracic, and musculoskeletal radiologists were identified from the 2016 Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Work effort in radiography, ultrasound, CT, and MRI was stratified by gender. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS:22,445 radiologists were included (19.0% female; 19.6% in academic practices). At univariable analysis, female (vs. male) generalists had lower work effort in MRI (10.2% vs. 13.2%) (p < 0.001); abdominal radiologists had higher work effort in ultrasound (27.1% vs. 21.9%), with lower work effort in CT (53.7%. vs. 56.0%) and MRI (8.1%. vs. 9.4%) (p < 0.001); and musculoskeletal radiologists had higher work effort in radiography (41.6% vs. 34.8%) and less in MRI (44.8% vs. 49.6%) (p = 0.007). In multivariable analyses, female gender was independently associated with lower work effort in advanced imaging (CT and MRI) for generalists (coefficient, -0.020; p < 0.001), abdominal radiologists (coefficient, -0.042; p < 0.001), and neuroradiologists (coefficient -0.010; p = 0.035). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Horizontal occupational segregation exists in radiology with female radiologists devoting lower work effort to advanced imaging modalities. Further investigation is warranted to better understand the sources and downstream implications of such variation.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:While subspecialty radiologists' practice patterns have received recent attention, little is known about the practice patterns of general radiologists. We aim to characterize this group (which represents most US radiologists). MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:US radiologists' individual work efforts were assessed using the 2017 Medicare Provider and Other Supplier Public Use File and a previously validated wRVU-weighted claims-based classification system. Using prior criteria, radiologists without >50% work efforts in a single subspecialty were deemed generalists. For this study, a >25% subspecialty work effort threshold was deemed a subspecialty "focus area," and generalists with ≥2 subspecialty focus areas were deemed "multispecialists." Practice characteristics were summarized using various parameters. RESULTS:Among 12,438 radiologists meeting existing claims-based criteria to be deemed generalists, 85.0% had ≥2 subspecialty focus areas of >25% work effort (i.e., multispecialists), 14.6% had one focus area, and 0.4% had no focus area. The fraction of generalists meeting multispecialist criteria was similar across radiologists' years in practice (range 84.7% to 85.4%), academic vs. nonacademic status (84.9% to 86.6%), and practice size (83.3% to 87.0%). Although general radiologist multispecialization varied geographically, a majority were multispecialists in all states (range 57.6% in VT to 93.9% in WY) and percentages were not associated with state-level population density (r = 0.013; p = 0.926). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The large majority of US general radiologists practice as multispecialists, and nearly all have at least one subspecialty focus area. The predominance of general radiologists' multispecialty focus across various practice types and locations supports their role in facilitating patient access to a range of radiologist subspecialties.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The head-computed tomography (CT) exam code was recently identified by policy makers as having a potentially overvalued resource value units (RVU). A critical aspect in determining RVUs is the complexity of patients undergoing the service. This study evaluated the complexity of patients undergoing head-CT. METHODS:The 2017 Medicare PSPS Master File was used to identify the most common site for performing head-CT examinations. Given the most common location, the 5% Research Identifiable File, was then used to evaluate complexity of patients undergoing head CT on the same day as an emergency department (ED) visit based on the Evaluation & Management (E&M) "level" of these visits (1-least complex to 5-most complex patient) and the ICD-10 diagnosis coding associated with the billed head CT claims. RESULTS:56.1% of head CT examinations were performed in the ED. Seventy percent of noncontrast exams performed in the ED were ordered in the most complex patient encounters (level 5 E&M visits). The most common ICD-10 code for head-CT without intravenous contrast billed with a level 5 E&M visit was "dizziness and giddiness," and for head-CT without and with intravenous contrast was "headache." CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Head-CT is not only most frequently ordered in the ED, but also during the most complex ED visits, suggesting that the ICD-10 codes associated with such exams do not appropriately reflects patient complexity. The valuation process should also consider the complexity of associated billed patient encounters, as indicated by E&M visit levels.

OBJECTIVE. Industry relationships drive technologic innovation in interventional radiology and offer opportunities for professional growth. Women are underrepresented in interventional radiology despite the growing recognition of the importance of diversity. This study characterized gender disparities in financial relationships between industry and academic interventional radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, U.S. academic interventional radiology physicians and their academic ranks were identified by searching websites of practices with accredited interventional radiology fellowship programs. Publicly available databases were queried to collect each physician's gender, years since medical school graduation, h-index, academic rank, and industry payments in 2018. Wilcoxon and chi-square tests compared payments between genders. A general linear model assessed the impact of academic rank, years since graduation, gender, and h-index on payments. RESULTS. Of 842 academic interventional radiology physicians, 108 (13%) were women. A total $14,206,599.41 was received by 686 doctors (81%); only $147,975.28 (1%) was received by women. A lower percentage of women (74%) than men (83%) received payments (p = 0.04); median total payments were lower for women ($535) than men ($792) (p = 0.01). Academic rank, h-index, years since graduation, and male gender were independent predictors of higher payments. Industry payments supporting technologic advancement were made exclusively to men. CONCLUSION. Female interventional radiology physicians received fewer and lower industry payments, earning 1% of total payments despite constituting 13% of physicians. Gender independently predicted industry payments, regardless of h-index, academic rank, or years since graduation. Gender disparity in interventional radiology physician-industry relationships warrants further investigation and correction.

Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2-5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years ± 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%-44% and 27%-48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System was low and varied widely across centers. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Milot in this issue.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess radiologists' performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), with attention to the impact of the novel MIPS-Alternative Payment Models (APMs) participation option created under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act. METHODS:Data regarding radiologists' 2017 MIPS performance was extracted from the Physician Compare 2017 Individual EC Public Reporting-Overall MIPS Performance data set, and additional physician characteristics were extracted from multiple CMS data sets. RESULTS:Among 20,956 MIPS-participating radiologists, 16.6% participated using individual reporting, 68.9% group reporting, and 13.4% APM reporting. Average Quality scores were 59.7 84.0, and 92.5, respectively. The fractions of radiologists scored in Advancing Care Information were 4.1%, 27.0%, and 100.0%. When scored, average scores in this category were 61.9, 94.6, and 80.9. A total of 27.7% and 42.7% of interventional radiologists were scored in this category using individual and group reporting, respectively. However, general radiologists and subspecialists other than interventional radiologists were rarely (<5%) scored. Average scores in Improvement Activities were 37.5, 92.5, and 100.0 for individual reporting, group reporting, and APM reporting, respectively. Average Final Scores were 56.5, 85.6, and 90.6. The better performance of APM versus group reporting was most apparent for smaller practices (ie, for practice sizes ≤15, average Final Score of 84.1 for APM versus 75.0 for group reporting). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Although radiologists perform much better in MIPS using group versus individual reporting, performance improves even further through APM reporting, particularly for smaller practices. Radiologists seeking better performance under MIPS should carefully explore APM opportunities.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:There is a lack of comprehensive data regarding the factors that influence the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to detect and localize clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). OBJECTIVE:To systematically review the current literature assessing the factors influencing the variability of mpMRI performance in csPCa diagnosis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION/METHODS:A computerized bibliographic search of Medline/PubMed database was performed for all studies assessing magnetic field strength, use of an endorectal coil, assessment system used by radiologists and inter-reader variability, experience of radiologists and urologists, use of a contrast agent, and use of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tools in relation to mpMRI diagnostic accuracy. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS/RESULTS:A total of 77 articles were included. Both radiologists' reading experience and urologists'/radiologists' biopsy experience were the main factors that influenced diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, it is mandatory to indicate the experience of the interpreting radiologists and biopsy-performing urologists to support the reliability of the findings. The most recent Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines are recommended for use as the main assessment system for csPCa, given the simplified and standardized approach as well as its particular added value for less experienced radiologists. Biparametric MRI had similar accuracy to mpMRI; however, biparametric MRI performed better with experienced readers. The limited data available suggest that the combination of CAD and radiologist readings may influence diagnostic accuracy positively. CONCLUSIONS:Multiple factors affect the accuracy of mpMRI and MRI-targeted biopsy to detect and localize csPCa. The high heterogeneity across the studies underlines the need to define the experience of radiologists and urologists, implement quality control, and adhere to the most recent PI-RADS assessment guidelines. Further research is needed to clarify which factors impact the accuracy of the MRI pathway and how. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:We systematically reported the factors influencing the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). These factors are significantly related to each other, with the experience of the radiologists being the dominating factor. In order to deliver the benefits of mpMRI to diagnose csPCa, it is necessary to develop expertise for both radiologists and urologists, implement quality control, and adhere to the most recent Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment guidelines.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess recent trends in US radiology practice consolidation. METHODS:Radiologist practice characteristics were obtained from the Medicare Physician Compare database for 2014 and 2018. Radiologists were classified on the basis of their largest identifiable practice affiliations. Single-specialty radiology practices were identified using practice names. Temporal trends in practice sizes were assessed. RESULTS:At the individual radiologist level from 2014 to 2018, the fraction of all radiologists in groups with 1 or 2 members declined from 3.2% to 2.1%, 3 to 9 members from 10.2% to 6.7%, 10 to 24 members from 18.2% to 14.1%, 25 to 49 members from 16.6% to 15.1%, and 50 to 99 members from 13.3% to 11.5%. In contrast, the fraction in groups with 100 to 499 members increased from 15.7% to 21.8% and with ≥500 members from 22.9% to 28.7%. At the practice level, the fraction of all radiologists' practices with 1 or 2 members decreased from 26.9% to 22.8%, whereas the fraction with 100 to 499 members increased from 7.6% to 10.2% and with ≥500 members from 2.5% to 4.1%. Similar shifts were present for single-specialty radiology practices and all geographic regions nationally. The 30,492 radiologists identified in 2014 were affiliated with 4,908 group practices, including 2,812 single-specialty practices. In comparison, the 32,096 radiologists identified in 2018 were affiliated with 4,193 group practices (a 14.6% decline), including 2,216 single-specialty practices (a 21.2% decline). CONCLUSIONS:In very recent years, the US radiologist workforce has consolidated, leading to increased practice sizes and a substantial decline in the number of distinct practices, disproportionately affecting single-specialty radiology practices. The impact of this consolidation on cost, quality, and patient access merits further attention.

The increasing age of the US population is increasing the demand for healthcare services for elderly patients. However, elderly patients, particularly those over the age of 75, may encounter unique challenges when seeking healthcare services, including radiological imaging. Radiology practices need to recognize the needs of this cohort and develop strategies to provide elderly patients with compassionate, high quality care. In this article, we highlight obstacles that elderly patients may face in undergoing imaging examinations, and approaches that radiology practices may take in addressing these.