The impact of adjunctive tomosynthesis on screening mammography outcomes in two widely diverse radiology practices.

To determine the effect of adjunctive digital breast tomosynthesis screening on dissimilar mammography practices. We compared the outcomes of breast cancer screening with digital mammography versus digital mammography combined with tomosynthesis in two independent breast imaging practices from June 1, 2015, to May 31, 2016. Institution one was a hospital-based academic practice of breast imaging specialists and institution two was a community-based practice with academic affiliation served by general radiologists. Screening mammography was linked to subsequent diagnostic imaging and pathology. Subject characteristics and performance metrics were compared via t test for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables. A two-sided z test was performed to test modality differences for assessment and pathology subtype. Of the 54 638 women, 54% (n = 29 295) were from institution one and 55% (n = 30 013) underwent digital mammography alone. Women undergoing mammography with tomosynthesis were older (60.8 years vs 56.9 years, P < .001) and had slightly less dense breast composition (P = .001). Performance metrics varied substantially between institutions. At both institutions the biopsy rate, positive predictive value of screening (PPV1 ), and invasive cancer detection rate increased significantly with adjunctive tomosynthesis. At institution one, the biopsy rate increased from 1.4% to 1.9%, the PPV1 from 6.0% to 8.2%, and the invasive cancer detection rate from 3.4 to 4.9/1000 women screened. At institution two, the respective increases were from 0.7% to 1.0%, 5.5% to 11.0%, and 2.3% to 4.1/1000. Tomosynthesis recalled asymmetry less and mass more and resulted in fewer BI-RADS 1 and 2 assessments than screening with mammography alone. Adjunctive tomosynthesis appears to have a consistent impact on breast cancer screening performance metrics despite marked variation in breast imaging practice. Combined tomosynthesis screening has a significantly higher PPV1 , leads to a greater number of biopsies, and detects more invasive cancer than screening with digital mammography.

Environmental impact reduction as a new dimension for quality measurement of healthcare services.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed accounting of energy and materials consumed during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The first and second stages of ISO standard (ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006) were followed to develop life cycle inventory (LCI). The LCI data collection took the form of observations, time studies, real-time metered power consumption, review of imaging department scheduling records and review of technical manuals and literature. FINDINGS: The carbon footprint of the entire MRI service on a per-patient basis was measured at 22.4 kg CO2eq. The in-hospital energy use (process energy) for performing MRI is 29 kWh per patient for the MRI machine, ancillary devices and light fixtures, while the out-of-hospital energy consumption is approximately 260 percent greater than the process energy, measured at 75 kWh per patient related to fuel for generation and transmission of electricity for the hospital, plus energy to manufacture disposable, consumable and reusable products. The actual MRI and standby energy that produces the MRI images is only about 38 percent of the total life cycle energy. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The focus on methods and proof-of-concept meant that only one facility and one type of imaging device technology were used to reach the conclusions. Based on the similar studies related to other imaging devices, the provided transparent data can be generalized to other healthcare facilities with few adjustments to utilization ratios, the share of the exam types, and the standby power of the facilities' imaging devices. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The transparent detailed life cycle approach allows the data from this study to be used by healthcare administrators to explore the hidden public health impact of the radiology department and to set goals for carbon footprint reductions of healthcare organizations by focusing on alternative imaging modalities. Moreover, the presented approach in quantifying healthcare services' environmental impact can be replicated to provide measurable data on departmental quality improvement initiatives and to be used in hospitals' quality management systems. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: No other research has been published on the life cycle assessment of MRI. The share of outside hospital indirect environmental impact of MRI services is a previously undocumented impact of the physician's order for an internal image.

Scope for energy improvement for hospital imaging services in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: To aid radiologists by measuring the carbon footprint of CT scans by quantifying in-hospital and out-of-hospital energy use and to assess public health impacts. METHOD: The study followed a standard life cycle assessment protocol to measure energy from a CT scan then expanding to all hospital electrical energy related to CT usage. In addition, all the fuel energy used to generate electricity and to manufacture the CT consumables was measured. The study was conducted at two hospitals. RESULTS: The entire life cycle energy for a CT scan was 24-34 kWh of natural resource energy per scan. The actual active patient scan energy that produces the images is only about 1.6% of this total life cycle energy. This large multiplier to get total CT energy is a previously undocumented environmental response to the direct radiology order for a patient CT scan. The CT in-hospital energy related to idle periods, where the machine is on but no patients are being scanned and is 14-30-fold higher than the energy used for the CT image. The in-hospital electrical energy of a CT scan makes up only about 25% of the total energy footprint. The rest is generated outside the hospital: 54-62% for generation and transmission of the electricity, while 13-22% is for all the energy to make the consumables. Different CT scanners have some influences on the results and could help guide purchase of CT equipment. CONCLUSIONS: The transparent, detailed life cycle approach allows the data from this study to be used by radiologists to examine details of both direct and of unseen energy impacts of CT scans. The public health (outside-the-hospital) impact (including the patients receiving a CT) needs to be measured and included.

A survey evaluating the beliefs of radiology residency program directors regarding incorporation of numeric standards into accreditation standards.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Numeric standards do not exist for the evaluation and comparison of radiology resident education. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has recently proposed the evaluation and assessment of residents by using numeric values for films read in various radiology modalities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate radiology residency program directors' perceived need for numeric standards for radiology residency programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Program directors were surveyed via a three-part questionnaire. Initial contact was made by e-mail, with follow-up by telephone if necessary. The survey questions were: (1) Do you feel that a need exists for a set of numerical standards for the number of films read by radiology residents in each of the various subspecialties? (2) Specify the needs that you see. (3) What are the barriers and disadvantages to acquiring such data? RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 44 of 192 radiology residency programs (23% response rate). Overall, 34 (77%) of 44 program directors were against implementation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education proposal, whereas 8 (18%) of 44 program directors were in favor of the proposal and 2 (5%) of 44 were undecided. A variety of reasons, both for and against the proposal, were provided by program directors. CONCLUSION: Among the program directors responding to the survey, there was strong opposition to implementation of mandatory standards for specific numbers of radiologic examinations by residents as the basis for program accreditation.