Comparison of Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System V2.0 and V2.1 for Evaluation of Transition Zone Lesions: A 5-Reader 202-Patient Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the distribution of Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System (PI-RADS) scores, interreader agreement, and diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1 for transition zone (TZ) lesions. METHODS: The study included 202 lesions in 202 patients who underwent 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging showing a TZ lesion that was later biopsied with magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion. Five abdominal imaging faculty reviewed T2-weighted imaging and high b value/apparent diffusion coefficient images in 2 sessions. Cases were randomized using a crossover design whereby half in the first session were reviewed using v2.0 and the other half using v2.1, and vice versa for the 2nd session. Readers provided T2-weighted imaging and DWI scores, from which PI-RADS scores were derived. RESULTS: Interreader agreement for all PI-RADS scores had κ of 0.37 (v2.0) and 0.26 (v2.1). For 4 readers, the percentage of lesions retrospectively scored PI-RADS 1 increased greater than 5% and PI-RADS 2 score decreased greater than 5% from v2.0 to v2.1. For 2 readers, the percentage scored PI-RADS 3 decreased greater than 5% and, for 2 readers, increased greater than 5%. The percentage of PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions changed less than 5% for all readers. For the 4 readers with increased frequency of PI-RADS 1 using v2.1, 4% to 16% were Gleason score ≥3 + 4 tumor. Frequency of Gleason score ≥3 + 4 in PI-RADS 3 lesions increased for 2 readers and decreased for 1 reader. Sensitivity of PI-RADS of 3 or greater for Gleason score ≥3 + 4 ranged 76% to 90% (v2.0) and 69% to 96% (v2.1). Specificity ranged 32% to 64% (v2.0) and 25% to 72% (v2.1). Positive predictive value ranged 43% to 55% (v2.0) and 41% to 58% (v2.1). Negative predictive value ranged 82% to 87% (v2.0) and 81% to 91% (v2.1). CONCLUSIONS: Poor interreader agreement and lack of improvement in diagnostic performance indicate an ongoing need to refine evaluation of TZ lesions.

Radiologist Characteristics Associated with Interpretive Performance of Screening Mammography: A National Mammography Database (NMD) Study.

Background Factors affecting radiologists' performance in screening mammography interpretation remain poorly understood. Purpose To identify radiologists characteristics that affect screening mammography interpretation performance. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 1223 radiologists in the National Mammography Database (NMD) from 2008 to 2019 who could be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) datasets. NMD screening performance metrics were extracted. Acceptable ranges were defined as follows: recall rate (RR) between 5% and 12%; cancer detection rate (CDR) of at least 2.5 per 1000 screening examinations; positive predictive value of recall (PPV1) between 3% and 8%; positive predictive value of biopsies recommended (PPV2) between 20% and 40%; positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3) between the 25th and 75th percentile of study sample; invasive CDR of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample; and percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample. Radiologist characteristics extracted from CMS datasets included demographics, subspecialization, and clinical practice patterns. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression models were performed to identify characteristics independently associated with acceptable performance for the seven metrics. The most influential characteristics were defined as those independently associated with the majority of the metrics (at least four). Results Relative to radiologists practicing in the Northeast, those in the Midwest were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV1, PPV2, and CDR (odds ratio [OR], 1.4-2.5); those practicing in the West were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV2, and PPV3 (OR, 1.7-2.1) but less likely to achieve acceptable invasive CDR (OR, 0.6). Relative to general radiologists, breast imagers were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, invasive CDR, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 1.4-4.4). Those performing diagnostic mammography were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, PPV3, invasive CDR, and CDR (OR, 1.9-2.9). Those performing breast US were less likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 0.5-0.7). Conclusion The geographic location of the radiology practice, subspecialization in breast imaging, and performance of diagnostic mammography are associated with better screening mammography performance; performance of breast US is associated with lower performance. ©RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Application of the PRECISION Trial Biopsy Strategy to a Contemporary Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy Cohort-How Many Clinically Significant Prostate Cancers are Missed?

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the generalizability of PRECISION findings and apply the PRECISION biopsy strategy to a contemporary cohort to characterize cancers missed by employing this strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 629 men biopsied between February 2015 and September 2018 met PRECISION inclusion criteria. Men with PI-RADS™ 1-2 magnetic resonance imaging were only biopsied if high clinical suspicion for cancer. Missed cancers were defined as prostate cancer identified uniquely on systematic biopsy in men with PI-RADS 3-5 magnetic resonance imaging, or on either systematic biopsy or magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy in men with PI-RADS 1-2 magnetic resonance imaging. Outcomes included 1) clinically significant prostate cancer, Gleason grade group 2 or greater, detection rate, 2) missed clinically significant prostate cancer rate upon application of PRECISION biopsy strategy, 3) Gleason grade group distribution, core size, spatial orientation and oncologic risk among missed cancers. RESULTS: Application of the PRECISION biopsy strategy to the study cohort resulted in avoidance of biopsy in 28%, similar magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy detection rate to PRECISION, reduction of Gleason grade group 1 detection rate by 60% and reduction of clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate by 19%. Missed clinically significant prostate cancers were often smaller than 6 mm (54.5%), Gleason grade group 2 (67.3%) and low risk by clinical nomogram (74.6%). Gleason grade group 1 cancers identified uniquely on systematic biopsy were often contralateral to magnetic resonance imaging target (46.4%), while missed clinically significant prostate cancer was predominantly ipsilateral (81%). Limitations include biopsy of only men with high risk clinical features among PI-RADS 1-2 magnetic resonance imaging, potentially overestimating the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate. CONCLUSIONS: The study cohort demonstrated generalizability of PRECISION findings. Applying the PRECISION biopsy strategy greatly reduces Gleason grade group 1 detection rate, while missing a small number of clinically significant prostate cancer, typically small volume, low risk, and Gleason grade group 2. Missed clinically significant prostate cancer is predominantly ipsilateral to magnetic resonance imaging target, possibly representing targeting error.

Variability of the Positive Predictive Value of PI-RADS for Prostate MRI across 26 Centers: Experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel.

Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2-5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years ± 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%-44% and 27%-48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System was low and varied widely across centers. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Milot in this issue.

Update of the Standard Operating Procedure on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We update the prior standard operating procedure for magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate, and summarize the available data about the technique and clinical use for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. This update includes practical recommendations on the use of magnetic resonance imaging for screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment and surveillance of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of clinicians from the American Urological Association and Society of Abdominal Radiology with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and technique of magnetic resonance imaging for this disease. When adequate studies were available for analysis, recommendations were made on the basis of data and when adequate studies were not available, recommendations were made on the basis of expert consensus. RESULTS: Prostate magnetic resonance imaging should be performed according to technical specifications and standards, and interpreted according to standard reporting. Data support its use in men with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. Sufficient data now exist to support the recommendation of magnetic resonance imaging before prostate biopsy in all men who have no history of biopsy. Currently, the evidence is insufficient to recommend magnetic resonance imaging for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Use of prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification, diagnosis and treatment pathway of men with prostate cancer is expanding. When quality prostate imaging is obtained, current evidence now supports its use in men at risk of harboring prostate cancer and who have not undergone a previous biopsy, as well as in men with an increasing prostate specific antigen following an initial negative standard prostate biopsy procedure.

Perceptions of Radiologists and Emergency Medicine Providers Regarding the Quality, Value, and Challenges of Outside Image Sharing in the Emergency Department Setting.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to assess the perceptions of radiologists and emergency medicine (EM) providers regarding the quality, value, and challenges associated with using outside imaging (i.e., images obtained at facilities other than their own institution). MATERIALS AND METHODS. We surveyed radiologists and EM providers at a large academic medical center regarding their perceptions of the availability and utility of outside imaging. RESULTS. Thirty-four of 101 radiologists (33.6%) and 38 of 197 EM providers (19.3%) responded. A total of 32.4% of radiologists and 55.3% of EM providers had confidence in the quality of images from outside community facilities; 20.6% and 44.7%, respectively, had confidence in the interpretations of radiologists from these outside facilities. Only 23.5% of radiologists and 5.3% of EM physicians were confident in their ability to efficiently access reports (for outside images, 47.1% and 5.3%). Very few radiologists and EM providers had accessed imaging reports from outside facilities through an available stand-alone portal. A total of 40.6% of radiologists thought that outside reports always or frequently reduced additional imaging recommendations (62.5% for outside images); 15.6% thought that reports changed interpretations of new examinations (37.5% for outside images); and 43.8% thought that reports increased confidence in interpretations of new examinations (75.0% for outside images). A total of 29.4% of EM providers thought that access to reports from outside facilities reduced repeat imaging (64.7% for outside images), 41.2% thought that they changed diagnostic or management plans (50.0% for outside images), and 50.0% thought they increased clinical confidence (67.6% for outside images). CONCLUSION. Radiologists and EM providers perceive high value in sharing images from outside facilities, despite quality concerns. Substantial challenges exist in accessing these images and reports from outside facilities, and providers are unlikely to do so using separate systems. However, even if information technology solutions for seamless image integration are adopted, providers' lack of confidence in outside studies may remain an important barrier.

Clinical Practice Characteristics of Radiologists Based on American Board of Radiology Interventional Radiology Certification Status.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to assess clinical practice characteristics of radiologists on the basis of American Board of Radiology (ABR) interventional radiology (IR) certification status. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Medicare-participating radiologists were linked with ABR diplomates using the ABR's public search engine. Radiologists with an interventional radiology/diagnostic radiology (IR/DR) certificate (offered since 2017) were deemed currently IR-certified (n = 2840), and those assigned a vascular and interventional radiology subspecialty certificate (now defunct by the ABR) were deemed previously IR-certified (n = 900). Physician characteristics were obtained from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data. RESULTS. Overall, the mean percentage work effort in IR was higher for radiologists currently IR-certified than it was for radiologists who were previously IR-certified (65.9% vs 30.6%). Although 41.2% of currently IR-certified diplomates had more than 90% IR work effort, 35.7% had 50% or less IR work effort. Radiologists with current IR certification versus those with previous IR certification were more likely to be in an academic practice (25.1% vs 8.4%), a larger practice (in a practice with ≥ 100 members, 41.2% vs 22.4%), and earlier career stages (≤ 20 years in practice, 46.5% vs 0.6%). Of the 10 services most commonly billed by currently versus previously IR-certified radiologists, two and zero, respectively, were invasive procedures. Of identified CMS-participating radiologists with more than 50% IR effort, 27.2% (727/2670) were neither previously nor currently IR-certified. CONCLUSION. Although radiologists maintaining IR certification have higher IR work effort than those whose IR certification has lapsed, they are heterogeneous with overall sizable noninvasive diagnostic imaging practices. Approximately one-quarter of radiologists with predominant IR practices have never obtained IR certification. Because current IR/DR maintenance of certification testing exclusively addresses IR practice, attention is warranted to ensure certification is relevant to all IR diplomates.

Emerging Challenges and Opportunities in the Evolution of Teleradiology.

OBJECTIVE. In recent decades, teleradiology has expanded considerably, and many radiology practices now engage in intraorganizational or extraorganizational teleradiology. In this era of patient primacy, optimizing patient care and care delivery is paramount. This article provides an update on recent changes, current challenges, and future opportunities centered around the ability of teleradiology to improve temporal and geographic imaging access. We review licensing and regulations and discuss teleradiology in providing services to rural areas and assisting with disaster response, including the response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. CONCLUSION. Teleradiology can help increase imaging efficiency and mitigate both geographic and temporal discrepancies in imaging care. Technologic limitations and regulatory hurdles hinder the optimal practice of teleradiology, and future attention to these issues may help ensure broader patient access to high-quality imaging across the United States.

Gender Disparity in Industry Relationships With Academic Interventional Radiology Physicians.

OBJECTIVE. Industry relationships drive technologic innovation in interventional radiology and offer opportunities for professional growth. Women are underrepresented in interventional radiology despite the growing recognition of the importance of diversity. This study characterized gender disparities in financial relationships between industry and academic interventional radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, U.S. academic interventional radiology physicians and their academic ranks were identified by searching websites of practices with accredited interventional radiology fellowship programs. Publicly available databases were queried to collect each physician's gender, years since medical school graduation, h-index, academic rank, and industry payments in 2018. Wilcoxon and chi-square tests compared payments between genders. A general linear model assessed the impact of academic rank, years since graduation, gender, and h-index on payments. RESULTS. Of 842 academic interventional radiology physicians, 108 (13%) were women. A total $14,206,599.41 was received by 686 doctors (81%); only $147,975.28 (1%) was received by women. A lower percentage of women (74%) than men (83%) received payments (p = 0.04); median total payments were lower for women ($535) than men ($792) (p = 0.01). Academic rank, h-index, years since graduation, and male gender were independent predictors of higher payments. Industry payments supporting technologic advancement were made exclusively to men. CONCLUSION. Female interventional radiology physicians received fewer and lower industry payments, earning 1% of total payments despite constituting 13% of physicians. Gender independently predicted industry payments, regardless of h-index, academic rank, or years since graduation. Gender disparity in interventional radiology physician-industry relationships warrants further investigation and correction.

Interreader Concordance of the TI-RADS: Impact of Radiologist Experience.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this article is to assess radiologist concordance in characterizing thyroid nodules using the American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS), focusing on the effect of radiologist experience on reader concordance. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three experienced and three less experienced radiologists assessed 150 thyroid nodules using the TI-RADS lexicon. Percent concordance was determined for various endpoints. RESULTS. Interreader concordance for the five TI-RADS categories was 87.2% for shape, 81.2% for composition, 76.1% for echogenicity, 72.9% for margins, and 69.8% for echogenic foci. Concordance for individual features was 96.3% for rim calcifications, 90.8% for macrocalcifications, 90.1% for spongiform, 83.5% for comet tail artifact, and 77.7% for punctate echogenic foci. Concordance for the TI-RADS level and recommendation for fine-needle aspiration (FNA) were 50.4% and 78.9%, respectively. Concordance was significantly (p < 0.05) higher for less experienced readers in identifying margins (84.3% vs 67.4%), echogenic foci (76.9% vs 69.3%), comet tail artifact (89.6% vs 79.2%), and punctate echogenic foci (85.3% vs 75.5%), and lower for peripheral rim calcifications (95.0% vs 97.8 %), but was not different (p > 0.05) for the remaining categories and features. CONCLUSION. A range of TI-RADS categories, features, and recommendations for FNA had generally moderate interreader agreement among six radiologists. Our results show that concordance for numerous characteristics was significantly higher for the less experienced versus the more experienced readers. These results suggest that less experienced readers relied more on the explicit TI-RADS criteria, whereas the experienced radiologists partially relied on their accumulated experience when forming impressions. However, the overall TI-RADS level and recommendation for FNA were unaffected, supporting the robustness of the TI-RADS lexicon and its continued use in practice.

RadioGraphics Update: PI-RADS Version 2.1-A Pictorial Update.

Editor's Note.-Articles in the RadioGraphics Update section provide current knowledge to supplement or update information found in full-length articles previously published in RadioGraphics. Authors of the previously published article provide a brief synopsis that emphasizes important new information such as technological advances, revised imaging protocols, new clinical guidelines involving imaging, or updated classification schemes. Articles in this section are published solely online and are linked to the original article.

PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway.

High-quality evidence shows that MRI in biopsy-naive men can reduce the number of men who need prostate biopsy and can reduce the number of diagnoses of clinically insignificant cancers that are unlikely to cause harm. In men with prior negative biopsy results who remain under persistent suspicion, MRI improves the detection and localization of life-threatening prostate cancer with greater clinical utility than the current standard of care, systematic transrectal US-guided biopsy. Systematic analyses show that MRI-directed biopsy increases the effectiveness of the prostate cancer diagnosis pathway. The incorporation of MRI-directed pathways into clinical care guidelines in prostate cancer detection has begun. The widespread adoption of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for multiparametric MRI data acquisition, interpretation, and reporting has promoted these changes in practice. The PI-RADS MRI-directed biopsy pathway enables the delivery of key diagnostic benefits to men suspected of having cancer based on clinical suspicion. Herein, the PI-RADS Steering Committee discusses how the MRI pathway should be incorporated into routine clinical practice and the challenges in delivering the positive health impacts needed by men suspected of having clinically significant prostate cancer.

Exploratory study of geometric distortion correction of prostate diffusion-weighted imaging using B0 map acquisition.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of prostate MRI relies on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), commonly distorted by susceptibility artifacts, thereby creating a need for approaches to correct such distortion. PURPOSE: To compare geometric distortion on prostate MRI between standard DWI and a geometric distortion correction method for DWI described as static distortion correction DWI (SDC DWI). STUDY TYPE: Retrospective case study. POPULATION: Thirty patients (ages 31-81 years) undergoing prostate MRI. SEQUENCE: Geometric distortions from echo planar imaging were corrected with the SDC DWI protocol, which first acquires a B0 -field map to estimate geometric distortions. ASSESSMENT: Contours of the prostate were placed on axial T2 -weighted imaging (T2 WI) as an anatomic standard. Pixel shifts and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were compared between prostate contours applied to the SDC DWI and standard DWI sequences. Detailed characterization of the impact of SDC DWI was performed in three representative patients. STATISTICAL TESTS: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, Spearman correlation test, and Bland-Altman plots were calculated. RESULTS: There was significantly greater overlap of the SDC DWI prostate region of interest (ROI) with T2 WI than standard DWI with T2 WI (10.56 cm2 ± 3.14, P < 0.05). R2 of ADC values from standard DWI vs. SDC DWI in the 30 patients ranged from 0.02-0.94 (mean 0.60). A patient without susceptibility artifact demonstrated minimal pixel shift ranging from 0.6-1.3 mm and high correlation of ADC values (R2 = 0.89) between SDC DWI and standard DWI. A patient with rectal gas showed greater pixel shift (range: -2.5 to -0.5 mm) and less ADC value correlation (R2 = 0.69). A patient with a pelvic phlebolith adjacent to the prostate showed an even greater pixel shift (range: 10-16 mm) and decreased ADC correlation (R2 = 0.21). DATA CONCLUSION: SDC DWI appears to correct for susceptibility-related pixel shifts in the prostate compared with standard DWI, which may have value for assessing prostate lesions obscured by geometric warping. Level of Evidence 4 Technical Efficacy Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1614-1619.

Population net benefit of prostate MRI with high spatiotemporal resolution contrast-enhanced imaging: A decision curve analysis.

BACKGROUND: The value of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) sequences in prostate MRI compared with noncontrast MRI is controversial. PURPOSE: To evaluate the population net benefit of risk stratification using DCE-MRI for detection of high-grade prostate cancer (HGPCA), with or without high spatiotemporal resolution DCE imaging. STUDY TYPE: Decision curve analysis. POPULATION: Previously published patient studies on MRI for HGPCA detection, one using DCE with golden-angle radial sparse parallel (GRASP) images and the other using standard DCE-MRI. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: GRASP or standard DCE-MRI at 3 T. ASSESSMENT: Each study reported the proportion of lesions with HGPCA in each Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) category (1-5), before and after reclassification of peripheral zone lesions from PI-RADS 3-4 based on contrast-enhanced images. This additional risk stratifying information was translated to population net benefit, when biopsy was hypothetically performed for: all lesions, no lesions, PI-RADS ≥3 (using NC-MRI), and PI-RADS ≥4 on DCE. STATISTICAL TESTS: Decision curve analysis was performed for both GRASP and standard DCE-MRI data, translating the avoidance of unnecessary biopsies and detection of HGPCA to population net benefit. We standardized net benefit values for HGPCA prevalence and graphically summarized the comparative net benefit of biopsy strategies. RESULTS: For a clinically relevant range of risk thresholds for HGPCA (>11%), GRASP DCE-MRI with biopsy of PI-RADS ≥4 lesions provided the highest net benefit, while biopsy of PI-RADS ≥3 lesions provided highest net benefit at low personal risk thresholds (2-11%). In the same range of risk thresholds using standard DCE-MRI, the optimal strategy was biopsy for all lesions (0-15% risk threshold) or PI-RADS ≥3 on NC-MRI (16-33% risk threshold). DATA CONCLUSION: GRASP DCE-MRI may potentially enable biopsy of PI-RADS ≥4 lesions, providing relatively preserved detection of HGPCA and avoidance of unnecessary biopsies compared with biopsy of all PI-RADS ≥3 lesions. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1400-1408.

The ultrasound characteristics of regions identified as suspicious by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) predict the likelihood of clinically significant cancer on MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the presence of an ultrasound hypoechoic region at the site of a region of interest (ROI) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results in improved prostate cancer (PCa) detection and predicts clinically significant PCa on MRI-ultrasonography fusion-targeted prostate biopsy (MRF-TB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between July 2011 and June 2017, 1058 men who underwent MRF-TB, with or without systematic biopsy, by a single surgeon were prospectively entered into an institutional review board-approved database. Each MRI ROI was identified and scored for suspicion by a single radiologist, and was prospectively evaluated for presence of a hypoechoic region at the site by the surgeon and graded as 0, 1 or 2, representing none, a poorly demarcated ROI-HyR, or a well demarcated ROI-HyR, respectively. The interaction of MRI suspicion score (mSS) and ultrasonography grade (USG), and the prediction of cancer detection rate by USG, were evaluated through univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: For 672 men, the overall and Gleason score (GS) ≥7 cancer detection rates were 61.2% and 39.6%, respectively. The cancer detection rates for USGs 0, 1 and 2 were 46.2%, 58.6% and 76.0% (P < 0.001) for any cancer, and 18.7%, 35.2% and 61.1% (P < 0.001) for GS ≥7 cancer, respectively. For MRF-TB only, the GS ≥7 cancer detection rates for USG 0, 1 and 2 were 12.8%, 25.7% and 52.0%, respectively (P < 0.001). On univariate analysis, in men with mSS 2-4, USG was predictive of GS ≥7 cancer detection rate. Multivariable regression analysis showed that USG, prostate-specific antigen density and mSS were predictive of GS ≥7 PCa on MRF-TB. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonography findings at the site of an MRI ROI independently predict the likelihood of GS ≥7 PCa, as men with a well-demarcated ROI-HyR at the time of MRF-TB have a higher risk than men without.

Transcatheter Dialysis Conduit Procedures: Changing National and State-Level Medicare Use Patterns over 15 Years.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the changing use of transcatheter hemodialysis conduit procedures. METHODS: Multiple Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services datasets were used to assess hemodialysis conduit angiography. Use was normalized per 100,000 beneficiaries and stratified by specialty and site of service. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2015, hemodialysis angiography use increased from 385 to 1,045 per 100,000 beneficiaries (compound annual growth rate [CAGR], +7.4%)]. Thrombectomy use increased from 114 to 168 (CAGR, +2.8%). Angiography and thrombectomy changed, by specialty, +1.5% and -1.3% for radiologists, +18.4% and +14.4% for surgeons, and +24.0% and +17.7% for nephrologists, respectively. By site, angiography and thrombectomy changed +29.1% and +20.7% for office settings and +0.8% and -2.4% for hospital settings, respectively. Radiologists' angiography and thrombectomy market shares decreased from 81.5% to 37.0% and from 84.2% to 47.3%, respectively. Angiography use showed the greatest growth for nephrologists in the office (from 5 to 265) and the greatest decline for radiologists in the hospital (299 to 205). Across states in 2015, there was marked variation in the use of angiography (0 [Wyoming] to 1173 [Georgia]) and thrombectomy (0 [6 states] to 275 [Rhode Island]). Radiologists' angiography and thrombectomy market shares decreased in 48 and 31 states, respectively, in some instances dramatically (eg, angiography in Nevada from 100.0% to 6.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Dialysis conduit angiography use has grown substantially, more so than thrombectomy. This growth has been accompanied by a drastic market shift from radiologists in hospitals to nephrologists and surgeons in offices. Despite wide geographic variability nationally, radiologist market share has declined in most states.

Diagnostic Radiologists' Participation in the American Board of Radiology Maintenance of Certification Program.

OBJECTIVE. Physicians across specialties have expressed concerns about Maintenance of Certification (MOC) programs of American Board of Medical Specialties member boards, calling for research about MOC acceptance, adoption, and value. The purpose of this study was to characterize diagnostic radiologists' participation in the American Board of Radiology (ABR) MOC program, the framework for its new Online Longitudinal Assessment program. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Practicing U.S. radiologists were identified from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Corresponding ABR diplomate certification information was obtained through the ABR public search engine. Focused on diagnostic radiologists (defined as those whose only ABR certificate is in diagnostic radiology), MOC participation rates were calculated across various physician characteristics for those whose participation was mandated by the ABR (time-limited certificates) and for those whose participation was not mandated (lifetime certificates). RESULTS. Among 20,354 included diagnostic radiologists, 11,479 (56.4%) participated in MOC. Participation rates were 99.6% (10,058/10,099) among those whose MOC was ABR mandated and 13.9% (1421/10,225) among those whose participation was not mandated (p < 0.001). The rates of nonmandated participation were higher (all p < 0.001) for academic than for non-academic radiologists (28.0% vs 11.3%), subspecialists than for generalists (17.0% vs 11.5%), and those in larger practice groups (< 10 members, 5.0%; 10-49 members, 12.6%; ≥ 50 members, 20.7%). State-level rates of nonmandated participation varied from 0.0% (South Dakota, Montana) to 32.6% (Virginia) and positively correlated with state population density (r = 0.315). CONCLUSION. Although diagnostic radiologists with time-limited certificates nearly universally participate in MOC, those with lifetime certificates (particularly general radiologists and those in smaller and nonacademic practices) participate infrequently. Low rates of nonmandated participation may reflect diplomate dissatisfaction or negative perceptions about MOC.

Facility-Based Measurement in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System: A Potential Safety Net for Which Most Radiologists Will Be Eligible.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the percentage and characteristics of radiologists who meet criteria for facility-based measurement in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS. The Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was used to identify radiologists who bill 75% or more of their Medicare Part B claims in the facility setting. RESULTS. Among 31,217 included radiologists nationwide, 71.0% met the eligibility criteria for facility-based measurement as individuals in MIPS. The percentage of predicted eligibility was slightly higher for male than female radiologists (72.9% vs 64.5%). The percentage decreased slightly with increasing years in practice (from 78.8% for radiologists with < 10 years in practice to 67.3% for radiologists with ≥ 25 years in practice). The eligibility percentage was also higher for radiologists in rural as opposed to urban practices (81.6% vs 71.3%) and in academic as opposed to nonacademic practices (77.2% vs 70.3%). However, the percentages were similar across practices of varying sizes. There was also a greater degree of heterogeneity by state, ranging from 50.9% in Minnesota to 94.0% in West Virginia. By overall geographic region, the percentage of predicted eligibility was lowest in the Northeast (64.7%) and highest in the Midwest (78.3%). A higher percentage of generalists met the 75% facility-based threshold than did subspecialists (77.3% vs 65.4%). When stratified by subspecialty, however, facility-based eligibility was lowest for musculoskeletal radiologists (38.1%) and breast imagers (45.1%) and highest for cardiothoracic radiologists (85.1%). For other subspecialties, predicted eligibility ranged from 66.0% to 77.8%. CONCLUSION. Most radiologists will be eligible for facility-based reporting for MIPS in 2019, with some variation by demographic and specialty characteristics. The facility-based option provides a safety net for radiologists who face challenges accessing hospital data for reporting quality measures. In general, radiologists should not alter their current MIPS strategy but should instead consider facility-based measurement as a contingency plan that could result in a higher final score.