Can Breast Compression Be Reduced in Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of decreasing breast compression during digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis (DBT) on perceived pain and image quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this two-part study, two groups of women with prior mammograms were recruited. In part 1, subjects were positioned for craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views, and four levels of compression force were applied to evaluate changes in breast thickness, perceived pain, and relative tissue coverage. No imaging was performed. In part 2, two MLO DBT images of one breast of each patient were acquired at standard and reduced compression. Blurring artifacts and tissue coverage were judged by three breast imaging radiologists, and compression force, breast thickness, relative tissue coverage, and perceived pain were recorded. RESULTS: Only the first reduction in force was feasible because further reduction resulted in inadequate breast immobilization. Mean force reductions of 48% and 47% for the CC and MLO views, respectively, resulted in a significantly reduced perceived pain level, whereas the thickness of the compressed breast increased by 0.02 cm (CC view) and 0.09 (MLO view, part 1 of the study) and 0.38 cm (MLO view, part 2 of the study), respectively, with no change in tissue coverage or increase in motion blurring. CONCLUSION: Mammography and DBT acquisitions may be possible using half of the compression force used currently, with a significant and substantial reduction in perceived pain with no clinically significant change in breast thickness and tissue coverage.

Interactive case review of radiologic and pathologic findings from breast biopsy: are they concordant? How do I manage the results?

The number of imaging-guided percutaneous breast biopsies performed has steadily increased as imaging techniques have improved. Percutaneous biopsy is becoming more commonplace and supplanting excisional biopsy as the preferred diagnostic tool. The radiologist's role in caring for patients who undergo breast biopsy extends beyond imaging to identifying lesions for biopsy and then performing the procedure. Radiologists must also be cognizant of radiologic-pathologic correlation to determine whether biopsy results are concordant with imaging findings and make management recommendations. Management of microcalcifications, masses, and areas of asymmetry begins with recognizing and characterizing the findings with the proper Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon. Determining concordance between imaging findings and histologic results is equally important. The decision to recommend surgical excision or short-term follow-up relies heavily on whether the histologic diagnosis correlates with the imaging findings, a determination that is part of the radiologist's responsibilities if he or she performs the biopsy. Supplemental material available at http://radiographics.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/rg.334125123/-/DC1.

Handheld device review of abdominal CT for the evaluation of acute appendicitis.

Advances in handheld computing now allow review of DICOM datasets from remote locations. As the diagnostic ability of this tool is unproven, we evaluated the ability to diagnose acute appendicitis on abdominal CT using a mobile DICOM viewer. This HIPAA compliant study was IRB-approved. Twenty-five abdominal CT studies from patients with RLQ pain were interpreted on a handheld device (iPhone) using a DICOM viewer (OsiriX mobile) by five radiologists. All patients had surgical confirmation of acute appendicitis or follow-up confirming no acute appendicitis. Studies were evaluated for the ability to find the appendix, maximum appendiceal diameter, presence of an appendicolith, periappendiceal stranding and fluid, abscess, and an assessment of the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Results were compared to PACS workstation. Fifteen cases of acute appendicitis were correctly identified on 98% of interpretations, with no false-positives. Eight appendicoliths were correctly identified on 88% of interpretations. Three abscesses were correctly identified by all readers. Handheld device measurement of appendiceal diameter had a mean 8.6% larger than PACS measurements (p = 0.035). Evaluation for acute appendicitis on abdominal CT studies using a portable device DICOM viewer can be performed with good concordance to reads performed on PACS workstations.

USMLE Step 3 Scores Have Value in Predicting ABR Core Examination Outcome and Performance: A Multi-institutional Study.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We analyzed multi-institutional data to determine if Step 3 performance tiers can identify radiology residents with increased risk of Core examination failure and submean performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected Step 3 scores (USMLE Step 3 or COMLEX Level 3) and American Board of Radiology (ABR) Core examination outcomes and scores for anonymized residents from 13 different Diagnostic Radiology residency programs taking the ABR Core examination between 2013 and 2019. Step 3 scores were converted to percentiles based on Z-score, with Core outcome and performance analyzed for Step 3 groups based on 50th percentile and based on quintiles. Core outcome was scored as fail when conditionally passed or failed. Core performance was measured by the percent of residents with scores below the mean. Differences between Step 3 groups for Core outcome and Core performance were statistically evaluated. RESULTS: Data were available for 342 residents. The Core examination failure rate for 121 residents with Step 3 scores <50th percentile was 19.8% (fail relative risk = 2.26), significantly higher than the 2.7% failure rate for the 221 other residents. Of 42 residents with Step 3 scores in the lowest quintile, the Core failure rate increased to 31.0% (fail relative risk = 3.52). Core performance improved with higher Step 3 quintiles. CONCLUSION: Step 3 licensing scores have value in predicting radiology resident performance on the ABR Core examination, enabling residency programs to target higher risk residents for early assessment and intervention.

Factors Influential in the Selection of Radiology Residents in the Post-Step 1 World: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVES: Reporting of United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 results will transition from a numerical score to a pass or fail result. We sought an objective analysis to determine changes in the relative importance of resident application attributes when numerical Step 1 results are replaced. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was designed to model radiology resident selection and determine the relative weights of various application factors when paired with a numerical or pass or fail Step 1 result. Faculty involved in resident selection at 14 US radiology programs chose between hypothetical pairs of applicant profiles between August and November 2020. A conditional logistic regression model assessed the relative weights of the attributes, and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. RESULTS: There were 212 participants. When a numerical Step 1 score was provided, the most influential attributes were medical school (OR: 2.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.07-2.67), Black or Hispanic race or ethnicity (OR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.79-2.38), and Step 1 score (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.69-1.95). When Step 1 was reported as pass, the applicant's medical school grew in influence (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 2.42-3.18), and there was a significant increase in influence of Step 2 scores (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.23-1.40 versus OR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.46-1.69). There was little change in the relative influence of race or ethnicity, gender, class rank, or clerkship honors. DISCUSSION: When Step 1 reporting transitions to pass or fail, medical school prestige gains outsized influence and Step 2 scores partly fill the gap left by Step 1 examination as a single metric of decisive importance in application decisions.

The Relationship Between ACR Diagnostic Radiology In-Training Examination Scores and ABR Core Examination Outcome and Performance: A Multi-Institutional Study.

PURPOSE: We analyzed multi-institutional data to understand the relationship of ACR Diagnostic Radiology In-Training Examination (DXIT) scores to ABR Core examination performance. METHODS: We collected DXIT rank scores and ABR Core examination outcomes and scores for anonymized residents from 12 different diagnostic radiology residency programs taking the ABR Core examination between 2013 and 2019. DXIT scores were grouped into quintiles based on rank score for residency year 1 (R1), residency year 2 (R2), and residency year 3 (R3) residents. Core outcome was scored as fail when conditionally passed or failed. Core performance was grouped using SD from the mean and measured by the percent of residents with scores below the mean. Differences between DXIT score quintiles for Core outcome and Core performance were statistically evaluated. RESULTS: DXIT and Core outcome data were available for 446 residents. The Core examination failure rate for the lowest quintile R1, R2, and R3 DXIT scores was 20.3%, 34.2%, and 38.0%, respectively. Core performance improved with higher R3 DXIT quintiles. Only 2 of 229 residents with R3 DXIT score ≥ 50th percentile failed the Core examination, with both failing residents having R2 DXIT scores in the lowest quintile. CONCLUSIONS: DXIT scores are useful evaluation metrics to identify a subgroup of residents at significantly higher risk for Core examination failure and another subgroup of residents at significantly lower risk for Core examination failure, with increasing predictive power with advancing residency year. These scores enable identification of approximately one-half of R3 residents whose risk of Core examination failure is negligible.

The Relationship Between US Medical Licensing Examination Step Scores and ABR Core Examination Outcome and Performance: A Multi-institutional Study.

PURPOSE: We analyzed multi-institutional data to understand the relationship of US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step scores to ABR Core examination performance to identify Step score tiers that stratify radiology residents into different Core performance groups. METHODS: We collected USMLE Step scores and ABR Core examination outcomes and scores for anonymized residents from 13 different diagnostic radiology residency programs taking the ABR Core examination between 2013 and 2019. USMLE scores were grouped into noniles using z scores and then aggregated into three tiers based on similar Core examination pass-or-fail outcomes. Core performance was grouped using standard deviation from the mean and then measured by the percent of residents with scores below the mean. Differences between Step tiers for Core outcome and Core performance were statistically evaluated (P < .05 considered significant). RESULTS: Differences in Step 1 terciles Core failure rates (45.9%, 11.9%, and 3.0%, from lowest to highest Step tiers; n = 416) and below-mean Core performance (83.8%, 54.1%, and 21.1%, respectively; n = 402) were significant. Differences in Step 2 groups Core failure rates (30.0%, 10.6%, and 2.0%, from lowest to highest Step tiers; n = 387) and below-mean Core performance (80.0%, 43.7%, and 14.0%, respectively; n = 380) were significant. Step 2 results modified Core outcome and performance predictions for residents in Step 1 terciles of varying statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Tiered scoring of USMLE Step results has value in predicting radiology resident performance on the ABR Core examination; effective stratification of radiology resident applicants can be done without reporting numerical Step scores.

COVID-19 Impact on Well-Being and Education in Radiology Residencies: A Survey of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced rapid evolution of the healthcare environment. Efforts to mitigate the spread of the virus through social distancing and shelter-at-home edicts have unintended consequences upon clinical and educational missions and mental well-being of radiology departments. We sought to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiology residencies with respect to the educational mission and perceptions of impact on well-being. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was IRB exempt. An anonymous 22 question survey regarding the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on educational and clinical missions of residencies, its perceived impact upon morale of radiologists and trainees and a query of innovative solutions devised in response, was emailed to the Association of Program Directors in Radiology membership. Survey data were collected using SurveyMonkey (San Mateo, California). RESULTS: Respondents felt the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted their residency programs. Regarding the educational mission impact, 70.1% (75/107) report moderate/marked negative impact and 2.8% (3/107) that educational activities have ceased. Regarding the pandemic's impact on resident morale, 44.8% (48/107) perceive moderate/marked negative effect; perceived resident morale in programs with redeployment is significantly worse with 57.1% (12/21) reporting moderate/marked decrease. Respondents overwhelmingly report adequate resident access to mental health resources during the acute phase of the pandemic (88.8%, 95/107). Regarding morale of program directors, 61% (65/106) report either mild or marked decreased morale. Program innovations reported by program directors were catalogued and shared. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has markedly impacted the perceived well-being and educational missions of radiology residency programs across the United States.

Health Care Disparities in Radiology: A Primer for Resident Education.

As the population of the United States grows increasingly diverse, health care disparities become vital to understand and mitigate. The ethical and financial implications of how groups of Americans gain access to health care have evolved into some of today's most challenging socioeconomic problems. Educators in radiology are just beginning to tackle the concepts of health care disparities, unconscious bias, and cultural competency. In July 2017, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education required that all trainees and teaching faculty of accredited training programs receive training and experience in new areas of quality improvement to include an understanding of health care disparities as part of the core competencies. To our knowledge, there is no centralized curriculum regarding health care disparities for radiology residents and fellows. Many programs, in fact, have yet to introduce the concept to their trainees, who may have difficulty recognizing that this is even a problem affecting radiology. This manuscript serves as a primer for radiology trainees on health care disparities, with the goal of defining major concepts and providing examples of how variable access to radiological care can have substantial impact on patient outcomes.

Should Radiology Delay the Start of Fellowships? A Survey of the APDR.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Several major medical specialties have recently considered delaying the start date of their fellowship training programs to allow for completion of their trainees' residency obligations. Radiology program directors (PDs) have voiced the need for a similar solution, as fellowship start dates at some institutions now occur well before the end of residency training. The objectives of this study are to assess the current state of the radiology fellowship transition and understand its impact on residency programs and clinical services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survey Monkey (Palo Alto, CA) was used to create a survey consisting of 9 multiple choice and 2 free text questions. The survey was approved by the survey committee of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) and distributed via email to all 240 APDR members in November 2018. The survey was closed after 30 days. RESULTS: The response rate was 67% (160/240). Fifty-nine percent of respondents indicated some of their residents are asked to arrive at fellowships before July 1, often several days early for orientation and picture archiving and communication system (PACS) training. Sixteen percent of respondents said their own institutions ask incoming fellows to arrive early. Sixty-four percent of respondents indicated that this causes staffing problems. Seventy-eight percent of respondents supported considering a delay to the start of radiology fellowships. CONCLUSION: Most APDR members claim that residents are asked to arrive at fellowships early to complete orientation and training before July 1, and most say that this produces staffing problems on services. A significant majority of respondents support a discussion regarding delaying fellowship start dates.

The Association of Program Directors in Radiology Well-Being 2019 Survey: Identifying Residency Gaps and Offering Solutions.

PURPOSE: The Well-Being subcommittee of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) Common Program Requirements (CPR) Ad Hoc Committee and the APDR Academic Output Task Force jointly conducted a study of APDR members' current level of understanding and implementation of the 2017 ACGME CPR regarding well-being. METHODS: A survey instrument consisting of 10 multiple-choice and open-ended questions was distributed to the 322 active members of the APDR. The survey focused on three main content areas: APDR member knowledge of the 2017 CPR, composition of department well-being curricula, and residency well-being innovations. RESULTS: In all, 121 members (37.6%) responded to the survey. Of those, 67% rated their knowledge of requirements as incomplete. Responses also indicated that 74% of departments have not implemented a comprehensive well-being curriculum; 53% of programs do not offer the mandated self-screening tool; 15% of respondents do not offer residents protected time for medical, mental health, and dental appointments; and 42% do not offer their trainees access to an institutional mental health clinic. Survey comments offer numerous individual well-being initiatives from across the membership. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the APDR Well-Being Survey indicate that many programs have substantial work remaining to achieve ACGME compliance. Well-being innovations were included in an effort to share best practices.

Traumatic Retroperitoneal Injuries: Review of Multidetector CT Findings.

Multidetector computed tomography (CT) represents a significant advance in CT technology and can allow the accurate assessment of trauma patients, including the detection of traumatic retroperitoneal injuries, many of which are clinically occult. Retroperitoneal injuries include duodenal, pancreatic, vascular, renal, and adrenal injuries. Abnormal blood, fluid, or air within the retroperitoneal spaces may be isolated findings but can also occur in association with these injuries, and their recognition is the key to correctly identifying the injury. Accurate characterization of injury with CT can affect clinical management and can help minimize unnecessary laparotomies. Equivocal findings at initial abdominal CT should prompt close clinical follow-up with possible imaging follow-up, particularly for suspected occult duodenal and pancreatic injuries.

Towards Consensus: Training in Procedural Skills for Diagnostic Radiology Residents-Current Opinions of Residents and Faculty at a Large Academic Center.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The Diagnostic Radiology Milestones Project provides a framework for measuring resident competence in radiologic procedures, but there are limited data available to assist in developing these guidelines. We performed a survey of current radiology residents and faculty at our institution as a first step toward obtaining data for this purpose. The survey addressed attitudes toward procedural standardization and procedures that trainees should be competent by the end of residency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Current residents and faculty members were surveyed about whether or not there should be standardization of procedural training, in which procedures residents should achieve competency, and the number of times a procedure needs to be performed to achieve competency. RESULTS: Survey data were received from 60 study participants with an overall response rate of 32%. Sixty-five percent of respondents thought that procedural training should be standardized. Standardization of procedural training would include both the list of procedures that trainees should be competent in at the end of residency and the standard minimum number of procedures to achieve competency. Procedures that both residents and faculty agreed are important in which to achieve competency included central line/port procedures; CT-guided abdominal, thoracic, and musculoskeletal procedures; minor fluoroscopic-guided procedures; general fluoroscopy; peripheral line placements; and US-guided abdominal procedures. For most of these categories, most respondents believed that these procedures needed to be performed 6-20 times to achieve competency. CONCLUSION: Both resident and faculty respondents agreed that procedural training should be standardized during residency, and competence in specific procedures should be achieved at the completion of residency. Although this study is limited to a single institution, our data may provide assistance in developing future guidelines for standardizing image-guided procedure training. Future studies could be expanded to create a national consensus regarding the implementation of the Diagnostic Radiology Milestones Project.