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.

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are already being marketed as noninvasive, convenient opportunities to test for multiple cancer types with a single blood sample. The technology varies-involving detection of circulating tumor DNA, fragments of DNA, RNA, or proteins unique to each targeted cancer. The priorities and tradeoffs of reaching diagnostic resolution in the setting of possible false positives and negatives remain under active study. Given the well-established role of imaging in lesion detection and characterization for most cancers, radiologists have an essential role to play in selecting diagnostic pathways, determining the validity of test results, resolving false-positive MCED test results, and evaluating tradeoffs for clinical policy. Appropriate access to and use of imaging tests will also factor into clinical guidelines. Thus, all clinicians potentially involved with MCED tests for cancer screening will need to weigh the benefits and harms of MCED testing, including consideration of how the tests will be used alongside or in place of other screening options, how diagnostic confirmation tests should be selected, and what the implications are for policy and reimbursement decisions. Further, patients will need regular support to make informed decisions about screening using MCED tests in the context of their personal cancer risks, health-related values, and access to care.

BACKGROUND:IPMN consensus guidelines make implicit judgments on what cancer risk level should prompt surgery. We used decision modeling to estimate this cancer risk threshold (CRT) for BD-IPMN patients. METHODS:We created a decision model to compare quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) following surgery or surveillance for BD-IPMNs. We simulated treatment decisions for hypothetical patients, varying age, comorbidities and lesion location (pancreatic head/tail). The base case was a 60-year-old patient with mild comorbidities and pancreatic head IPMN. Probabilities, life expectancies, and utilities were incorporated from literature/public datasets. CRT was defined as the level of cancer risk at which the expected value of QALYs for surgery first exceeded that of surveillance. RESULTS:In the base case, surgery was preferred over surveillance, yielding 21.90 vs. 21.88 QALYs. The optimal CRT for a BD-IPMN patient depended on age, comorbidities, and location. CRT in the base case was 20 % and 3 % for an IPMN in the head and tail of the pancreas, respectively. Other drivers of preferred treatment were age and likelihood of postoperative mortality. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:For BD-IPMNs, the optimal CRT varies depending on patient age and risk of surgical complications. Personalized risk threshold values could guide treatment decisions and inform future treatment consensus guidelines.

The incidence of twin pregnancies has been rising, largely attributable to increasing use of artificial reproductive techniques. Ultrasound plays a critical role in establishing the chorionicity and amnionicity of multiple gestations, a key predictor of the expected risk and complications, along with guiding future clinical and imaging follow-up examinations and intervals. People carrying multiple gestations will typically undergo more ultrasound examinations (and occasionally fetal MRI) than those carrying singletons, at minimum including a first trimester dating scan, nuchal translucency scan at 11 to 14 weeks, an anatomy scan at 18 to 22 weeks, and other scans in the second and third trimesters for growth and surveillance. This document clarifies the most appropriate imaging guidelines for multiple gestations for seven clinical scenarios/variants, which range from initial imaging, follow-up imaging, growth and surveillance for uncomplicated multiple gestations, and those complicated by a known abnormality or discordance between fetuses. 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.

Endometriosis is a common condition impacting individuals assigned female at birth. Though incompletely understood, the disorder is caused by endometrial-like tissue located outside of the endometrial cavity, associated with inflammation and fibrosis. Clinical presentation is variable, ranging from asymptomatic to severe pelvic pain and infertility. Treatment is determined by the patient's individualized goals and can include medical therapies to temporize symptoms or definitive surgical excision. Imaging is used to help diagnose endometriosis and for treatment planning. 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.

Burnout among radiologists is increasingly prevalent, with the potential for having a substantial negative impact on physician well-being, delivery of care, and health outcomes. To evaluate this phenomenon using reliable and accurate means, validated quantitative instruments are essential. Variation in measurement can contribute to wide-ranging findings. This article evaluates radiologist burnout rates globally and dimensions of burnout as reported using different validated instruments; it also provides guidance on best practices to characterize burnout. Fifty-seven studies published between 1990 and 2023 were included in a systematic review, and 43 studies were included in a meta-analysis of burnout prevalence using random-effects models. The reported burnout prevalence ranged from 5% to 85%. With the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), burnout prevalence varied significantly depending on the instrument version used. Among MBI subcategories, the pooled prevalence of emotional exhaustion was 54% (95% CI, 45-63%), depersonalization was 52% (95% CI, 41-63%), and low personal accomplishment was 36% (95% CI, 27-47%). Other validated burnout instruments showed less heterogeneous results; studies using the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index yielded a burnout prevalence of 39% (95% CI, 34-45%), whereas the validated single-item instrument yielded a burnout prevalence of 34% (95% CI, 29-39%). Standardized instruments for assessing prevalence alongside multidimensional profiles capturing experiences may better characterize radiologist burnout, including change occurring over time.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the proficiency of a HIPAA-compliant version of GPT-4 in identifying actionable, incidental findings from unstructured radiology reports of Emergency Department patients. To assess appropriateness of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated, patient-facing summaries of these findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Radiology reports extracted from the electronic health record of a large academic medical center were manually reviewed to identify non-emergent, incidental findings with high likelihood of requiring follow-up, further sub-stratified as "definitely actionable" (DA) or "possibly actionable-clinical correlation" (PA-CC). Instruction prompts to GPT-4 were developed and iteratively optimized using a validation set of 50 reports. The optimized prompt was then applied to a test set of 430 unseen reports. GPT-4 performance was primarily graded on accuracy identifying either DA or PA-CC findings, then secondarily for DA findings alone. Outputs were reviewed for hallucinations. AI-generated patient-facing summaries were assessed for appropriateness via Likert scale. RESULTS:For the primary outcome (DA or PA-CC), GPT-4 achieved 99.3% recall, 73.6% precision, and 84.5% F-1. For the secondary outcome (DA only), GPT-4 demonstrated 95.2% recall, 77.3% precision, and 85.3% F-1. No findings were "hallucinated" outright. However, 2.8% of cases included generated text about recommendations that were inferred without specific reference. The majority of True Positive AI-generated summaries required no or minor revision. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:GPT-4 demonstrates proficiency in detecting actionable, incidental findings after refined instruction prompting. AI-generated patient instructions were most often appropriate, but rarely included inferred recommendations. While this technology shows promise to augment diagnostics, active clinician oversight via "human-in-the-loop" workflows remains critical for clinical implementation.