Faculty Bibliography

Purpose To analyze the cost effectiveness of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) risk stratification guidelines versus magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiopancreatography-based treatment of patients with possible choledocholithiasis. Materials and Methods A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare cost and effectiveness of three diagnostic strategies for gallstone disease with possible choledocholithiasis: noncontrast MR cholangiopancreatography, contrast material-enhanced MR imaging/MR cholangiopancreatography, and ASGE risk stratification guidelines for diagnostic evaluation recommending endoscopy (high risk), MR cholangiopancreatography (intermediate risk), or no test (low risk). Analysis was performed from a U.S. health system perspective over 1-year and lifetime horizons. The model accounted for benign and malignant causes of biliary obstruction and procedural complications. Cost information was based on Medicare reimbursements. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of parameter variability on model results. Results Noncontrast MR cholangiopancreatography was most cost-effective in 45-55-year-old patients (less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained), while contrast-enhanced MR imaging was favored in younger adults. Risk-stratified testing was less costly than MR cholangiopancreatography, with long-term savings of $1870 and $2068 versus noncontrast and contrast-enhanced MR cholangiopancreatography, respectively, but was also less effective (-0.1814, -0.1831 QALY, respectively). The lifetime incremental cost per QALY for noncontrast MR cholangiopancreatography was $10 311. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging was favored with pretest probabilities of biliary stricture or malignancy 0%-73% for patients aged 20-44 years. For patients older than 55 years, ASGE guidelines maximized QALYs at the lowest cost. Conclusion Although adults older than 55 years of age are optimally evaluated by using ASGE guidelines, younger patients suspected of having acute biliary obstruction likely benefit from MR cholangiopancreatography rather than risk-stratified diagnostic imaging because of improved detection of choledocholithiasis and alternative causes of biliary obstruction. (c) RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess differences in patient distress, risk perception, and treatment preferences for incidental renal findings with descriptive versus combined descriptive and numeric graphical risk information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized survey study was conducted for adult patients about to undergo outpatient imaging studies at a large urban academic institution. Two survey arms contained either descriptive or a combination of descriptive and numeric graphical risk information about three hypothetical incidental renal findings at CT: 2-cm (low risk) and 5-cm (high risk) renal tumors and a 2-cm (low risk) renal artery aneurysm. The main outcomes were patient distress, perceived risk (qualitative and quantitative), treatment preference, and valuation of lesion discovery. RESULTS: Of 374 patients, 299 participated (79.9% response rate). With inclusion of numeric and graphical, rather than only descriptive, risk information about disease progression for a 2-cm renal tumor, patients reported less worry (3.56 vs 4.12 on a 5-point scale; p < 0.001) and favored surgical consultation less often (29.3% vs 46.9%; p = 0.003). The proportion choosing surgical consultation for the 2-cm renal tumor decreased to a similar level as for the renal artery aneurysm with numeric risk information (29.3% [95% CI, 21.7-36.8%] and 27.9% [95% CI, 20.5-35.3%], respectively). Patients overestimated the absolute risk of adverse events regardless of risk information type, but significantly more so when given descriptive information only, and valued the discovery of lesions regardless of risk information type (range, 4.41-4.81 on a 5-point scale). CONCLUSION: Numeric graphical risk communication for patients about incidental renal lesions may facilitate accurate risk comprehension and support patients in informed decision making.

Provided methodologic training, more imagers can contribute to the evidence basis on improved health outcomes and value in diagnostic imaging. The Value of Imaging Through Comparative Effectiveness Research Program was developed to provide hands-on, practical training in five core areas for comparative effectiveness and big biomedical data research: decision analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, evidence synthesis, big data principles, and applications of big data analytics. The program's mixed format consists of web-based modules for asynchronous learning as well as in-person sessions for practical skills and group discussion. Seven diagnostic radiology subspecialties and cardiology are represented in the first group of program participants, showing the collective potential for greater depth of comparative effectiveness research in the imaging community.

BACKGROUND:Mild traumatic brain injury is theorized to cause widespread functional changes to the brain. Resting-state fMRI may be able to measure functional connectivity changes after traumatic brain injury, but resting-state fMRI studies are heterogeneous, using numerous techniques to study ROIs across various resting-state networks. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:We systematically reviewed the literature to ascertain whether adult patients who have experienced mild traumatic brain injury show consistent functional connectivity changes on resting-state -fMRI, compared with healthy patients. DATA SOURCES/METHODS:We used 5 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Web of Science). STUDY SELECTION/METHODS:Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched for research published since 2010. Search strategies used keywords of "functional MR imaging" and "mild traumatic brain injury" as well as related terms. All results were screened at the abstract and title levels by 4 reviewers according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. For full-text inclusion, each study was evaluated independently by 2 reviewers, with discordant screening settled by consensus. DATA ANALYSIS/METHODS:Data regarding article characteristics, cohort demographics, fMRI scan parameters, data analysis processing software, atlas used, data characteristics, and statistical analysis information were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS/RESULTS:Across 66 studies, 80 areas were analyzed 239 times for at least 1 time point, most commonly using independent component analysis. The most analyzed areas and networks were the whole brain, the default mode network, and the salience network. Reported functional connectivity changes varied, though there may be a slight trend toward decreased whole-brain functional connectivity within 1 month of traumatic brain injury and there may be differences based on the time since injury. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Studies of military, sports-related traumatic brain injury, and pediatric patients were excluded. Due to the high number of relevant studies and data heterogeneity, we could not be as granular in the analysis as we would have liked. CONCLUSIONS:Reported functional connectivity changes varied, even within the same region and network, at least partially reflecting differences in technical parameters, preprocessing software, and analysis methods as well as probable differences in individual injury. There is a need for novel rs-fMRI techniques that better capture subject-specific functional connectivity changes.

Asymptomatic adnexal masses are commonly encountered in daily radiology practice. Although the vast majority of these masses are benign, a small subset have a risk of malignancy, which require gynecologic oncology referral for best treatment outcomes. Ultrasound, using a combination of both transabdominal, transvaginal, and duplex Doppler technique can accurately characterize the majority of these lesions. MRI with and without contrast is a useful complementary modality that can help characterize indeterminate lesions and assess the risk of malignancy is those that are suspicious. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

This review focuses on the initial imaging in the reproductive age adult population with acute pelvic pain, including patients with positive and negative beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) levels with suspected gynecological and nongynecological etiology. For all patients, a combination of transabdominal and transvaginal pelvic ultrasound with Doppler is usually appropriate as an initial imaging study. If nongynecological etiology in patients with negative β-hCG is suspected, then CT of the abdomen and pelvis with or without contrast is also usually appropriate. In patients with positive β-hCG and suspected nongynecological etiology, CT of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast and MRI of the abdomen and pelvis without contrast may be appropriate. In patients with negative β-hCG and suspected gynecological etiology, CT of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast, MRI of pelvis without contrast, or MRI of pelvis with and without contrast may be appropriate. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Cervical cancer is a common gynecological malignancy worldwide. Cervical cancer is staged based on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) classification system, which was revised in 2018 to incorporate radiologic and pathologic data. Imaging plays an important role in pretreatment assessment including initial staging and treatment response assessment of cervical cancer. Accurate determination of tumor size, local extension, and nodal and distant metastases is important for treatment selection and for prognostication. Although local recurrence can be diagnosed by physical examination, imaging plays a critical role in detection and follow-up of local and distant recurrence and subsequent treatment selection. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Asymptomatic adnexal masses are commonly encountered in daily radiology practice. Although the vast majority of these masses are benign, a small subset have a risk of malignancy, which require gynecologic oncology referral for best treatment outcomes. Ultrasound, using a combination of both transabdominal, transvaginal, and duplex Doppler technique can accurately characterize the majority of these lesions. MRI with and without contrast is a useful complementary modality that can help characterize indeterminate lesions and assess the risk of malignancy is those that are suspicious. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

This review focuses on the initial imaging in the reproductive age adult population with acute pelvic pain, including patients with positive and negative beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) levels with suspected gynecological and nongynecological etiology. For all patients, a combination of transabdominal and transvaginal pelvic ultrasound with Doppler is usually appropriate as an initial imaging study. If nongynecological etiology in patients with negative β-hCG is suspected, then CT of the abdomen and pelvis with or without contrast is also usually appropriate. In patients with positive β-hCG and suspected nongynecological etiology, CT of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast and MRI of the abdomen and pelvis without contrast may be appropriate. In patients with negative β-hCG and suspected gynecological etiology, CT of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast, MRI of pelvis without contrast, or MRI of pelvis with and without contrast may be appropriate. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.