The Neiman Imaging Comorbidity Index: Development and Validation in a National Commercial Claims Database.

OBJECTIVE: To build the Neiman Imaging Comorbidity Index (NICI), based on variables available in claims datasets, which provides good discrimination of an individual's chance of receiving advanced imaging (CT, MR, PET), and thus, utility as a control variable in research. METHODS: This retrospective study used national commercial claims data from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart database from the period January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019. Individuals with continuous enrollment during this 2-year study period were included. Lasso (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression was used to predict the chance of receiving advanced imaging in 2019 based on the presence of comorbidities in 2018. A numerical index was created in a development cohort (70% of the total dataset) using weights assigned to each comorbidity, based on regression ß coefficients. Internal validation of assigned scores was performed in the remaining 30% of claims, with comparison to the commonly used Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: The final sample (development and validation cohorts) included 10,532,734 beneficiaries, of whom 2,116,348 (20.1%) received advanced imaging. After model development, the NICI included nine comorbidities. In the internal validation set, the NICI achieved good discrimination of receipt of advanced imaging with a C statistic of 0.709 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.708-0.709), which predicted advanced imaging better than the CCI (C 0.692, 95% CI 0.691-0.692). Controlling for age and sex yielded better discrimination (C 0.748, 95% CI 0.748-0.749). DISCUSSION: The NICI is an easily calculated measure of comorbidity burden that can be used to adjust for patients' chances of receiving advanced imaging. Future work should explore external validation of the NICI.

An Examination of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Use of Prostate Biopsy and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed racial and ethnic disparities in the use of prostate biopsy or MRI following an elevated PSA result. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated insurance claims from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2017. This was a large commercially insured cohort from across the United States. We included all male enrollees over 40 years old receiving an elevated PSA result with no prior prostate biopsy or MRI and no confirmed urinary tract infection within 6 weeks of PSA test. RESULTS: A total of 765,409 participants met inclusion criteria with 43,711 (5.71%) receiving a PSA result above 4 ng/mL. Of these, 7,399 received either a prostate biopsy or MRI within 180 days. Men between ages 40-54 (29.48%) were most likely to receive prostate biopsy or MRI after an elevated PSA, followed by those between 55-64 (24.91%), 65-74 (18.56%), 75-84 (6.33%), and above 85 (3.62%). Compared to White patients, Black patients were more likely to receive either a prostate biopsy or MRI (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.32) following an elevated PSA level, while Asian (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.96) and Hispanic (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70, 0/97) patients were less likely. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians appear to be following the reported statistical incidence of prostate cancer by race and ethnicity when using prostate biopsy or MRI for patients with elevated PSA levels. These results demonstrate the importance of publishing statistical data on disease incidence by race and ethnicity for informing physicians' decision-making.

American College of Radiology initiatives on prostate magnetic resonance imaging quality.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become integral to diagnosing and managing patients with suspected or confirmed prostate cancer. However, the benefits of utilizing MRI can be hindered by quality issues during imaging acquisition, interpretation, and reporting. As the utilization of prostate MRI continues to increase in clinical practice, the variability in MRI quality and how it can negatively impact patient care have become apparent. The American College of Radiology (ACR) has recognized this challenge and developed several initiatives to address the issue of inconsistent MRI quality and ensure that imaging centers deliver high-quality patient care. These initiatives include the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), developed in collaboration with an international panel of experts and members of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), the Prostate MR Image Quality Improvement Collaborative, which is part of the ACR Learning Network, the ACR Prostate Cancer MRI Center Designation, and the ACR Appropriateness Criteria. In this article, we will discuss the importance of these initiatives in establishing quality assurance and quality control programs for prostate MRI and how they can improve patient outcomes.

Impact of 3D printed models on quantitative surgical outcomes for patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) printed anatomic models can facilitate presurgical planning by providing surgeons with detailed knowledge of the exact location of pertinent anatomical structures. Although 3D printed anatomic models have been shown to be useful for pre-operative planning, few studies have demonstrated how these models can influence quantitative surgical metrics. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess whether patient-specific 3D printed prostate cancer models can improve quantitative surgical metrics in patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: Patients with MRI-visible prostate cancer (PI-RADS V2 ≥ 3) scheduled to undergo RARP were prospectively enrolled in our IRB approved study (n = 82). Quantitative surgical metrics included the rate of positive surgical margins (PSMs), operative times, and blood loss. A qualitative Likert scale survey to assess understanding of anatomy and confidence regarding surgical approach was also implemented. RESULTS: The rate of PSMs was lower for the 3D printed model group (8.11%) compared to that with imaging only (28.6%), p = 0.128. The 3D printed model group had a 9-min reduction in operating time (213 ± 42 min vs. 222 ± 47 min) and a 5 mL reduction in average blood loss (227 ± 148 mL vs. 232 ± 114 mL). Surgeon anatomical understanding and confidence improved after reviewing the 3D printed models (3.60 ± 0.74 to 4.20 ± 0.56, p = 0.62 and 3.86 ± 0.53 to 4.20 ± 0.56, p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: 3D printed prostate cancer models can positively impact quantitative patient outcomes such as PSMs, operative times, and blood loss in patients undergoing RARP.

Professional Services Rendered by Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants Employed by Radiology Practices: Characteristics and Trends From 2017 Through 2019.

PURPOSE: With radiology practices increasingly employing nonphysician practitioners (NPPs), we aimed to characterize specific NPP clinical roles. METHODS: Linking 2017 to 2019 Medicare data sets, we identified all claims-submitting nurse practitioners and physician assistants (together NPPs) employed by radiologists. NPP-billed services were identified, weighted by work relative value units, and categorized as (1) clinical evaluation and management (E&M), (2) invasive procedures, and (3) noninvasive imaging interpretation. NPP practice patterns were assessed temporally and using frequency analysis. RESULTS: As the number of radiologist-employed NPPs submitting claims increased 16.3% (from 523 in 2017 to 608 in 2019), their aggregate Medicare fee-for-service work relative value units increased 17.3% (+40.0% for E&M [from 79,540 to 111,337]; +5.6% for procedures [from 179,044 to 189,003]; and +74.0% for imaging [from 5,087 to 8,850]). The number performing E&M, invasive procedures, and imaging interpretation increased 7.6% (from 329 to 354), 18.3% (from 387 to 458), and 31.8% (from 85 to 112), with 58.2%, 75.3%, and 18.4% billing those services in 2019. Paracentesis and thoracentesis were the most frequently billed invasive procedures. Fluoroscopic swallowing and bone densitometry examinations were the most frequently billed imaging services. By region, NPPs practicing as majority clinical E&M providers were most common in the Midwest (33.5%) and South (33.0%), majority proceduralists in the South (53.1%), and majority image interpreters in the Midwest (50.0%). CONCLUSIONS: As radiology practices employ more NPPs, radiologist-employed NPPs' aggregate services have increased for E&M, invasive procedures, and imaging interpretation. Most radiologist-employed NPPs perform invasive procedures and E&M. Although performed by a small minority, imaging interpretation has shown the largest relative service growth.