Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES AND RATIONALE/UNASSIGNED:Radiology-pathology correlation is time-consuming and is not feasible in most clinical settings, with the notable exception of breast imaging. The purpose of this study was to determine if an automated radiology-pathology report pairing system could accurately match radiology and pathology reports, thus creating a feedback loop allowing for more frequent and timely radiology-pathology correlation. METHODS:An experienced radiologist created a matching matrix of radiology and pathology reports. These matching rules were then exported to a novel comprehensive radiology-pathology module. All distinct radiology-pathology pairings at our institution from January 1, 2016 to July 1, 2016 were included (n = 8999). The appropriateness of each radiology-pathology report pairing was scored as either "correlative" or "non-correlative." Pathology reports relating to anatomy imaged in the specific imaging study were deemed correlative, whereas pathology reports describing anatomy not imaged with the particular study were denoted non-correlative. RESULTS:Overall, there was 88.3% correlation (accuracy) of the radiology and pathology reports (n = 8999). Subset analysis demonstrated that computed tomography (CT) abdomen/pelvis, CT head/neck/face, CT chest, musculoskeletal CT (excluding spine), mammography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) abdomen/pelvis, MRI brain, musculoskeletal MRI (excluding spine), breast MRI, positron emission tomography (PET), breast ultrasound, and head/neck ultrasound all demonstrated greater than 91% correlation. When further stratified by imaging modality, CT, MRI, mammography, and PET demonstrated excellent correlation (greater than 96.3%). Ultrasound and non-PET nuclear medicine studies demonstrated poorer correlation (80%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There is excellent correlation of radiology imaging reports and appropriate pathology reports when matched by organ system. Rapid, appropriate radiology-pathology report pairings provide an excellent opportunity to close feedback loop to the interpreting radiologist.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Correlation of imaging studies and reference standard outcomes is a significant challenge in radiology. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a new communication tool by assessing the ability of this system to correctly match the imaging studies to arthroscopy reports and qualitatively assessing radiologist behavior before and after the implementation of this system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a commercially available communication or educational tool and applying a novel matching rule algorithm, radiology and arthroscopy reports were matched from January 17, 2017 to March 1, 2017 based on anatomy. The interpreting radiologist was presented with email notifications containing the impression of the imaging report and the entire arthroscopy report. Total correlation rate of appropriate report pairings, modality-specific correlation rate, and the anatomy-specific correlation rate were calculated. Radiologists using the system were given a survey. RESULTS: Overall correlation rate for all musculoskeletal imaging was 83.1% (433 or 508). Low correlation was found in fluoroscopic procedures at 74.4%, and the highest correlation was found with ultrasound at 88.4%. Anatomic location varied from 51.6% for spine to 98.8% for hips and pelvis studies. Survey results revealed 87.5% of the respondents reporting being either satisfied or very satisfied with the new communication tool. The survey also revealed that some radiologists reviewed more cases than before. CONCLUSIONS: Matching of radiology and arthroscopy reports by anatomy allows for excellent report correlation (83.1%). Automated correlation improves the quality and efficiency of feedback to radiologists, providing important opportunities for learning and improved accuracy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of questionnaires completed by patients at the time of abdominopelvic CT performed for abdominal pain on the completeness of clinical information and the identification of potential causes of pain, compared with order requisitions alone. METHODS: 100 outpatient CT examinations performed for the evaluation of abdominal pain were retrospectively reviewed. The specificity of the location of pain was compared between the order requisition and patient questionnaire. An abdominal imaging fellow (Reader 1) and abdominal radiologist (Reader 2) reviewed the examinations independently in two sessions 6 weeks apart (one with only the order requisition and one also with the questionnaire). Readers recorded identified causes of pain and rated their confidence in interpretation (1-5 scale; least to greatest confidence). RESULTS: In 30% of patients, the questionnaire provided a more specific location for pain. Among these, the pain was localized to a specific quadrant in 40%. With having access to the questionnaire, both readers identified additional causes for pain not identified in session 1 (Reader 1, 8.6% [7/81]; Reader 2 5.3% [4/75]). Additional identified causes of pain included diverticulitis, cystitis, peritoneal implants, epiploic appendagitis, osseous metastatic disease, umbilical hernia, gastritis, and SMA syndrome. Confidence in interpretation was significantly greater using the questionnaire for both readers (Reader 1: 4.8 +/- 0.6 vs. 4.0 +/- 0.5; Reader 2: 4.9 +/- 0.3 vs. 4.7 +/- 0.5, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patient questionnaires provide additional relevant clinical history, increased diagnostic yield, and improve radiologists' confidence. Radiology practices are encouraged to implement questionnaires and make these readily available to radiologists at the time of interpretation.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to compare image quality and tumor assessment at prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted imaging (rFOV-DWI) and standard DWI (st-DWI). METHODS:A total of 49 patients undergoing prostate MRI and MRI/ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy were included. Examinations included st-DWI (field of view [FOV], 200 × 200 mm) and rFOV-DWI (FOV, 140 × 64 mm) using a 2-dimensional (2D) spatially-selective radiofrequency pulse and parallel transmission. Two readers performed qualitative assessments; a third reader performed quantitative evaluation. RESULTS:Overall image quality, anatomic distortion, visualization of capsule, and visualization of peripheral/transition zone edge were better for rFOV-DWI for reader 1 (P ≤ 0.002), although not for reader 2 (P ≥ 0.567). For both readers, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for tumor with a Gleason Score (GS) of 3 + 4 or higher were not different (P ≥ 0.289). Lesion clarity was higher for st-DWI for reader 2 (P = 0.008), although similar for reader 1 (P = 0.409). Diagnostic confidence was not different for either reader (P ≥ 0.052). Tumor-to-benign apparent diffusion coefficient ratio was not different (P = 0.675). CONCLUSIONS:Potentially improved image quality of rFOV-DWI did not yield improved tumor assessment. Continued optimization is warranted.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the outcomes of hyperechoic renal lesions measuring 1 cm or less at ultrasound examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 161 hyperechoic renal lesions measuring 1 cm or less at ultrasound that were evaluated with follow-up ultrasound, CT, or MRI. Follow-up imaging examinations were reviewed to assess for definitive lesion characterization or size stability. RESULTS: Follow-up included 11 unenhanced CT, 39 contrast-enhanced CT, 52 unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT, two unenhanced MRI, 50 unenhanced and contrast-enhanced MRI, and 87 ultrasound examinations. At CT or MRI 58.4% of lesions were confirmed to be angiomyolipomas. At CT, one lesion represented a stone, and one a hyperdense cyst. At CT or MRI 11.8% of the lesions had no correlate; 3.1% were not visualized at follow-up ultrasound. An additional 23.6% were stable at 2-year follow-up imaging or beyond. Two lesions were evaluated with only contrast-enhanced CT less than 1 month after ultrasound, and the CT images did not show macroscopic fat or calcification or meet the criteria for a simple cyst. These lesions were considered indeterminate. One lesion in a 65-year-old man was imaged with unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT 23 months after ultrasound, and the CT showed an increase in size, solid enhancement, and no macroscopic fat. This lesion was presumed to represent renal cell carcinoma. Overall, the one lesion presumed malignant and the two indeterminate lesions constituted 1.9% of the cohort. The other 98.1% of lesions were considered clinically insignificant. CONCLUSION: Most hyperechoic renal lesions measuring 1 cm or smaller were clinically insignificant, suggesting that such lesions may not require additional imaging. Patient demographics, symptoms and risk factors for malignancy may help inform the decision to forgo follow-up imaging of such lesions.

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of non-contrast MRI with half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin echo (HASTE) vs. contrast-enhanced MRI/3D-MRCP for assessment of suspected choledocholithiasis in hospitalized patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 123 contrast-enhanced abdominal MRI/MRCP scans in the hospital setting for possible choledocholithiasis were retrospectively evaluated. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, intraoperative cholangiogram or documented clinical resolution served as the reference standard. Readers first evaluated the biliary tree using coronal and axial HASTE and other non-contrast sequences, and later reviewed the entire exam with post-contrast sequences and 3D-MRCP. Test performance for the image sets was compared for choledocholithiasis, acute hepatitis, cholangitis, and acute cholecystitis. Reader agreement, MRCP image quality, and confidence levels were also assessed. Clinical predictors of age and fever were tested for association with perceived need for contrast in biliary assessment. RESULTS: There were 27 cases of choledocholithiasis, 31 cases of acute hepatitis, 37 cases of acute cholecystitis, and 3 clinically diagnosed cases of acute cholangitis. Both the abbreviated and full contrast-enhanced/MRCP image sets resulted in high accuracy for choledocholithiasis (91.1-94.3% vs. 91.9-92.7%). There was no difference in sensitivity or specificity for either reader for any diagnosis between image sets (p > 0.40). 1 reader showed improved confidence (p < 0.001) with inclusion of MRCP and contrast-enhanced images, but neither confidence nor MRCP quality scores were associated with diagnostic accuracy. Patient age and fever did not predict the need for contrast-enhanced images. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized patients with suspected choledocholithiasis, performance of non-contrast abdominal MRI with HASTE is similar to contrast-enhanced MRI with 3D-MRCP, offering potential for decreased scanning time and improved patient tolerability.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of temporal resolution (RT ) in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) on qualitative tumor detection and quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters in prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved study included 58 men (64 +/- 7 years). They underwent 3T prostate MRI showing dominant peripheral zone (PZ) tumors (24 with Gleason >/= 4 + 3), prior to prostatectomy. Continuously acquired DCE utilizing GRASP (Golden-angle RAdial Sparse Parallel) was retrospectively reconstructed at RT of 1.4 sec, 3.7 sec, 6.0 sec, 9.7 sec, and 14.9 sec. A reader placed volumes-of-interest on dominant tumors and benign PZ, generating quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters (ktrans , ve ) at each RT . Two blinded readers assessed each RT for lesion presence, location, conspicuity, and reader confidence on a 5-point scale. Data were assessed by mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA), generalized estimating equation (GEE), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: RT did not affect sensitivity (R1all : 69.0%-72.4%, all Padj = 1.000; R1GS>/=4 + 3 : 83.3-91.7%, all Padj = 1.000; R2all : 60.3-69.0%, all Padj = 1.000; R2GS>/=4 + 3 : 58.3%-79.2%, all Padj = 1.000). R1 reported greater conspicuity of GS >/= 4 + 3 tumors at RT of 1.4 sec vs. 14.9 sec (4.29 +/- 1.23 vs. 3.46 +/- 1.44; Padj = 0.029). No other tumor conspicuity pairwise comparison reached significance (R1all : 2.98-3.43, all Padj >/= 0.205; R2all : 2.57-3.19, all Padj >/= 0.059; R1GS>/=4 + 3 : 3.46-4.29, all other Padj >/= 0.156; R2GS>/=4 + 3 : 2.92-3.71, all Padj >/= 0.439). There was no effect of RT on reader confidence (R1all : 3.17-3.34, all Padj = 1.000; R2all : 2.83-3.19, all Padj >/= 0.801; R1GS>/=4 + 3 : 3.79-4.21, all Padj = 1.000; R2GS>/=4 + 3 : 3.13-3.79, all Padj = 1.000). ktrans and ve of tumor and benign tissue did not differ across RT (all adjusted P values [Padj ] = 1.000). RT did not significantly affect area under the curve (AUC) of Ktrans or ve for differentiating tumor from benign (all Padj = 1.000). CONCLUSION: Current PI-RADS recommendations for RT of 10 seconds may be sufficient, with further reduction to the stated PI-RADS preference of RT