Upper extremity injuries in the victims of intimate partner violence.

OBJECTIVES: To recognize most common patterns of upper extremity (UE) injuries in victims of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). METHODS: Radiological review of 308 patients who reported physical IPV at our institution from January 2013 to June 2018, identified 55 patients with 88 unique UE injuries. Demographic data and injury patterns and associations were collected from the electronic medical records. RESULTS: The cohort included 49 females and 6 males (age 19-63, mean 38). At the time of injury, IPV was reported in 15/88 (17%) and IPV screening was documented for 22/88 (25%) injuries. There were 46 fractures, 8 dislocations or subluxations, and 34 isolated soft tissue injuries, most commonly involving the hand (56/88). Fractures most commonly involved the fingers (21/46, 46%) and the 5th digit (8/27, 30%). Medial UE fractures (5th digit, 4th digit) constituted 44% of hand and finger fractures (12/27) and 26% of all fractures (12/46). Comminuted and displaced fractures were rare (8/46, 17%). Head and face injuries were the most common concomitant injuries (9/22, 41%) and subsequent injuries (21/61, 35%). Of 12 patients with recurrent UE injuries, 6 had recurrent injuries of the same hand. Five of 6 non-acute fractures (83%) were of the hand. CONCLUSIONS: Hand and finger injuries are the most common UE injuries in patients with IPV, with finger being the most common site and medial hand the most common region of fracture. Repeated injuries involving the same site and a combination of medial hand and head or face injuries could indicate IPV. KEY POINTS: • Upper extremity injuries in victims of intimate partner violence are most commonly seen in the hand and fingers. • Fingers are the most common site of fracture and the medial hand is the most common region of fracture in the upper extremity in victims of intimate partner violence. • In intimate partner violence victims with upper extremity injuries, concomitant injuries and subsequent injuries are most commonly seen in the head and neck region.

Improving the completeness of structured MRI reports for rectal cancer staging.

PURPOSE: Assess the impact of a multifaceted intervention to improve the completeness of structured MRI reports for patients undergoing initial staging for rectal cancer. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study was performed at a large academic hospital. MRI reports for initial staging of rectal cancer in 2017 and 2019 were analyzed pre- and post-implementation of multiple quality improvement interventions in 2018, including harmonizing MRI protocols across the institution, educational conferences and modules, and requiring second opinion consultation for all MRI rectal cancer examinations. The primary outcome measure was the completeness of rectal cancer staging MRI reports, classified as optimal, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory based on the inclusion of 15 quality measures pre-defined by a consensus of abdominal and cancer imaging subspecialists, colorectal surgeons, and radiation oncologists at our institution, based on published recommendations. Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate changes in report quality and documentation of each quality measure. RESULTS: The study included 138 MRI reports, of which 72 (52%) were completed in 2017 pre-intervention. Post intervention, the proportion of optimal reports increased significantly from 52.8% (38/72) to 71.2% (47/66) (p = 0.035). Documentation of 1 quality measure (N stage) increased post intervention from 91.7% (66/72) to 100% (66/66) (p = 0.029). Documentation of 7 quality measures was 100% post intervention, with a documentation rate of > 95% for all quality measures except radial location of tumor. CONCLUSION: A combination of educational and system-wide interventions was associated with an improvement in the completeness of structured MRI reports for rectal cancer staging.

Unscheduled Radiologic Examination Orders in the Electronic Health Record: A Novel Resource for Targeting Ambulatory Diagnostic Errors in Radiology.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of unscheduled radiologic examination orders in an electronic health record, and the proportion of unscheduled orders that are clinically necessary, by modality. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted from January to October 2016 at an academic institution. All unscheduled radiologic examination orders were retrieved for seven modalities (CT, MR, ultrasound, obstetric ultrasound, bone densitometry, mammography, and fluoroscopy). After excluding duplicates, 100 randomly selected orders from each modality were assigned to two physician reviewers who classified their clinical necessity, with 10% overlap. Interannotator agreement was assessed using κ statistics, the percentage of clinically necessary unscheduled orders was compared, and χ2 analysis was used to assess differences by modality. RESULTS: A total 494,503 radiologic examination orders were placed during the study period. After exclusions, 33,546 unscheduled orders were identified, 7% of all radiologic examination orders. Among 700 reviewed unscheduled orders, agreement was substantial (κ = 0.63). Eighty-seven percent of bone densitometric examinations and sixty-five percent of mammographic studies were considered clinically necessary, primarily for follow-up management. The majority of orders in each modality were clinically necessary, except for CT, obstetric ultrasound, and fluoroscopy (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Large numbers of radiologic examination orders remain unscheduled in the electronic health record. A substantial portion are clinically necessary, representing potential delays in executing documented provider care plans. Clinically unnecessary unscheduled orders may inadvertently be scheduled and performed. Identifying and performing clinically necessary unscheduled radiologic examination orders may help reduce diagnostic errors related to diagnosis and treatment delays and enhance patient safety, while eliminating clinically unnecessary unscheduled orders will help avoid unneeded testing.

Impact of an Information Technology-Enabled Quality Improvement Initiative on Timeliness of Patient Contact and Scheduling of Screening Mammography Recall.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of an information technology-enabled quality improvement initiative on timeliness of patient contact and scheduling of screening mammography recall. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study was conducted in a screening practice (two ambulatory centers, A and B; two hospitals, C and D) that uses offline batch results (A, B, C) and same-day results (D) with on-site (A, C, D) or off-site (B) coordinators scheduling recalls. Before the intervention, radiologists at sites A, B, and C conveyed recalls via paper lists to coordinators after batch interpretation. At site D, coordinators received recall lists several times a day. In March 2017 an electronic alert system was implemented to notify coordinators of recall at report signing with required closed-loop acknowledgment once recall was scheduled. Mean time (hours, excluding weekends) to schedule diagnostic evaluation was compared for 4-month periods before and after intervention by two-tailed t test and statistical process control analyses. RESULTS. Recall rates were 9.5% (1356/14,315) before and 8.9% (1432/16,034) after the intervention (p = 0.10). Mean time to schedule screening decreased after the intervention as follows: site A from 86 to 65 hours (-24.4%, p = 0.01); site B, 116 to 70 hours (-39.7%, p < 0.0001); site C, 98 to 65 hours (-33.7%, p = 0.002); and site D, 49 to 42 hours (-14.3%, p = 0.21). Statistical process control analysis showed significant sustained improvements at sites A, B, and C in mean time to patient contact and scheduling of diagnostic evaluation. CONCLUSION. An information technology-enabled quality improvement initiative to notify coordinators of screening recalls in real time with required patient contact and scheduling acknowledgment reduced time to diagnostic scheduling in a multisite practice. The greatest impact was found at the site with off-site coordinators, the least at the site performing same-day interpretation.

Imaging Quality Control in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) promises to have a transformational impact on quality in medicine, including in radiology. However, experience has shown that quality tools alone are often not sufficient to bring about consistent excellent performance. Specifically, rather than assuming outcome targets are consistently met, in quality control, managers assume that wide variation is likely present unless proven otherwise with objective performance data. In this article, we discuss what we consider to be the eight essential elements required to achieve comprehensive process control, necessary to deliver consistent quality in radiology: a process control framework, performance measures, performance standards and targets, monitoring applications, prediction models, optimization models, feedback mechanisms, and accountability mechanisms. We consider these elements to be universally applicable, including in the application of AI-based models. We also discuss how the lack of specific elements of a quality control program can hinder widespread quality control efforts. We illustrate the concept using the example of a CT radiation dose optimization and process control program previously developed by one of the authors and provide several examples of how AI-based tools might be used for quality control in radiology.

An Electronic Health Record Order Entry-Enabled Educational Intervention Is Not Effective in Reducing STAT Inpatient Radiology Orders.

OBJECTIVE: Assess whether introducing order priorities with defined performance expectations in the electronic health record (EHR) reduces immediate inpatient radiology orders. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved, retrospective study was performed at a 776-bed academic hospital conducting 164,000+ inpatient radiology examinations annually. Study period was January 2, 2017, to July 23, 2017; 14 weeks pre- and postimplementation of an education-only intervention including replacing urgent and as soon as possible priorities with imaging within next 6, 12, or 24 hours; imaging in the morning; and required for discharge priorities. STAT routine, timed, today order priorities remained unchanged. Institution-wide training immediately pre- and postimplementation was provided through two waves of e-mail and electronic tip sheets. Primary outcome measure was total STAT studies ordered of total radiology studies ordered per week (STAT rate). Secondary outcomes were non-STAT, non-routine (non-SR) order rate, and routine order rate. Paired t test and statistical process control (SPC) analysis were performed. RESULTS: STAT rate pre- (22.5%, 7,150 STAT of 31,765 total; weeks 1-14) and postintervention (23.4%, 7,481 STAT of 32,034 total; weeks 16-29) remained unchanged (P = .37). SPC demonstrated no special cause variation. Postintervention non-SR rate increased 3-fold (2.7%, 859 non-SR of 31,765 total pre-intervention versus 8.2%, 2,615 non-SR of 32,034 total postintervention; 8.2%/2.7% = 3.0; P < .0001). There was an 8.8% relative reduction in routine rate postintervention (73.9%, 23,471 routine of 31,765 total pre-intervention; 67.4%, 21,579 routine of 32,034 total postintervention; (73.9% - 67.4%)/73.9% × 100 = 8.8%; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Implementing ordering priorities with defined performance expectations in the EHR reduced routine but did not reduce STAT inpatient radiology orders. More stringent interventions may be needed to reduce unnecessary STAT inpatient radiology ordering to improve use of limited imaging resources.

Report of the ACR's Economics Committee on Value-Based Payment Models.

A major outcome of the current health care reform process is the move away from unrestricted fee-for-service payment models toward those that are based on the delivery of better patient value and outcomes. The authors' purpose, therefore, is to critically evaluate and define those components of the overall imaging enterprise that deliver meaningful value to both patients and referrers and to determine how these components might be measured and quantified. These metrics might then be used to lobby providers and payers for sustainable payment solutions for radiologists and radiology services. The authors evaluated radiology operations and services using the framework of the imaging value chain, which divides radiology service into a number of discrete value-added activities, which ultimately deliver the primary product, most often the actionable report for diagnostic imaging or an effective outcome for interventional radiology. These value activities include scheduling and imaging appropriateness and stewardship, patient preparation, protocol design, modality operations, reporting, report communication, and clinical follow-up (eg, mammography reminder letters). Two further categories are hospital or health care organization citizenship and examination outcome. Each is discussed in turn, with specific activities highlighted.

Differing Interpretations of Report Terminology Between Primary Care Physicians and Radiologists.

PURPOSE: The lexicons of the radiologist and the referring physician may not be synonymous, which could cause confusion with radiology reporting. To further explore this possibility, we surveyed radiologists and primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding their respective interpretations of report terminology. METHODS: A survey was distributed to radiologists and PCPs through an internal listserv. Respondents were asked to provide an interpretation of the statistical likelihood of the presence of metastatic disease based upon the terminology used within a hypothetical radiology report. Ten common modifying terms were evaluated. Potential responses for the statistical likelihoods included 0%-25%, 26%-50%, 51%-75%, 76%-99%, and 100%. Differences between the groups were evaluated using either a χ2 test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. RESULTS: The phrases "diagnostic for metastatic disease" and "represents metastatic disease" were selected by a high percentage of both groups as conferring a 100% likelihood of "true metastatic disease." The phrases "cannot exclude metastatic disease" and "may represent metastatic disease" were selected by a high proportion of both groups as conferring a 0% likelihood of "true metastatic disease." Radiologists assigned a higher statistical likelihood to the terms "diagnostic for metastatic disease" (P = .016), "represents metastatic disease" (P = .004), "suspicious for metastatic disease" (P = .04), "consistent with metastatic disease" (P < .0001), and "compatible with metastatic disease" (P = .003). CONCLUSION: A qualitative agreement among radiologists and PCPs exists concerning the significance of the evaluated terminology, although radiologists assigned a higher statistical likelihood than PCPs for several phrases.

T2 relaxation time is related to liver fibrosis severity.

BACKGROUND: The grading of liver fibrosis relies on liver biopsy. Imaging techniques, including elastography and relaxometric, techniques have had varying success in diagnosing moderate fibrosis. The goal of this study was to determine if there is a relationship between the T2-relaxation time of hepatic parenchyma and the histologic grade of liver fibrosis in patients with hepatitis C undergoing both routine, liver MRI and liver biopsy, and to validate our methodology with phantoms and in a rat model of liver fibrosis. METHODS: This study is composed of three parts: (I) 123 patients who underwent both routine, clinical liver MRI and biopsy within a 6-month period, between July 1999 and January 2010 were enrolled in a retrospective study. MR imaging was performed at 1.5 T using dual-echo turbo-spin echo equivalent pulse sequence. T2 relaxation time of liver parenchyma in patients was calculated by mono-exponential fit of a region of interest (ROI) within the right lobe correlating to histopathologic grading (Ishak 0-6) and routine serum liver inflammation [aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT)]. Statistical comparison was performed using ordinary logistic and ordinal logistic regression and ANOVA comparing T2 to Ishak fibrosis without and using AST and ALT as covariates; (II) a phantom was prepared using serial dilutions of dextran coated magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. T2 weighed imaging was performed by comparing a dual echo fast spin echo sequence to a Carr-Purcell-Meigboom-Gill (CPMG) multi-echo sequence at 1.5 T. Statistical comparison was performed using a paired t-test; (III) male Wistar rats receiving weekly intraperitoneal injections of phosphate buffer solution (PBS) control (n=4 rats); diethylnitrosamine (DEN) for either 5 (n=5 rats) or 8 weeks (n=4 rats) were MR imaged on a Bruker Pharmascan 4.7 T magnet with a home-built bird-cage coil. T2 was quantified by using a mono-exponential fitting algorithm on multi-slice multi echo T2 weighted data. Statistical comparison was performed using ANOVA. RESULTS: (I) Histopathologic evaluation of both rat and human livers demonstrated no evidence of steatosis or hemochromatosis There was a monotonic increase in mean T2 value with increasing degree of fibrosis (control 65.4±2.9 ms, n=6 patients); mild (Ishak 1-2) 66.7±1.9 ms (n=30); moderate (Ishak 3-4) 71.6±1.7 ms (n=26); severe (Ishak 5-6) 72.4±1.4 ms (n=61); with relatively low standard error (~2.9 ms). There was a statistically significant difference between degrees of mild (Ishak <4) vs. moderate to severe fibrosis (Ishak >4) (P=0.03) based on logistic regression of T2 and Ishak, which became insignificant (P=0.07) when using inflammatory markers as covariates. Expanding on this model using ordinal logistic regression, there was significance amongst all 4 groups comparing T2 to Ishak (P=0.01), with significance using inflammation as a covariate (P=0.03) and approaching statistical significance amongst all groups by ANOVA (P=0.07); (II) there was a monotonic increase in T2 and statistical significance (ANOVA P<0.0001) between each rat subgroup [phosphate buffer solution (PBS) 25.2±0.8, DEN 5-week (31.1±1.5), and DEN 9-week (49.4±0.4) ms]; (III) the phantoms that had T2 values within the relevant range for the human liver (e.g., 20-100 ms), demonstrated no statistical difference between two point fits on turbo spin echo (TSE) data and multi-echo CPMG data (P=0.9). CONCLUSIONS: The finding of increased T2 with liver fibrosis may relate to inflammation that may be an alternative or adjunct to other noninvasive MR imaging based approaches for assessing liver fibrosis.

Radiology Malpractice Claims in the United States From 2008 to 2012: Characteristics and Implications.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the frequency and liability costs associated with radiology malpractice claims relative to other medical services and to evaluate the clinical context and case disposition associated with radiology malpractice claims. METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study was exempted from institutional review board approval. The Comparative Benchmarking System database, a repository of more than 300,000 medical malpractice cases in the United States, was queried for closed claims over a five-year period (2008-2012). Claims were categorized by the medical service primarily responsible for the claim and the paid total loss. For all cases in which radiology was the primary responsible service, the case abstracts were evaluated to determine injury severity, claimant type by setting, claim allegation, process of care involved, case disposition, modality involved, and body section. Intracategory comparisons were made on the basis of the frequency of indemnity payment and total indemnity payment for paid cases, using χ(2) and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: Radiology was the eighth most likely responsible service to be implicated in a medical malpractice claim, with a median total paid loss (indemnity payment plus defense cost plus administrative expense) per closed case of $30,091 (mean, $205,619 ± $508,883). Radiology claims were most commonly associated with high- and medium-severity injuries (93.3% [820 of 879]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 91.7%-94.95%), the outpatient setting (66.3% [581 of 876]; 95% CI, 63.0%-69.2%), and diagnosis-related allegations (ie, failure to diagnose or delayed diagnosis) (57.3% [504 of 879]; 95% CI, 54.0%-60.6%). A high proportion of claims pertained to cancer diagnoses (44.0% [222 of 504]; 95% CI, 39.7%-48.3%). A total of 62.3% (548 of 879; 95% CI, 59.1%-65.5%) of radiology claims were closed without indemnity payments; 37.7% (331 of 879; 95% CI, 34.5%-40.9%) were closed with a median indemnity payment of $175,000 (range, $112-$6,691,762; mean $481,094 ± $727,636). CONCLUSIONS: Radiology malpractice claims most commonly involve diagnosis-related allegations in the outpatient setting, particularly cancer diagnoses, with approximately one-third of claims resulting in payouts to the claimants.

Brown fat at PET/CT: correlation with patient characteristics.

PURPOSES: To assess the prevalence of brown fat in patients with cancer, compare demographic characteristics of those with and those without brown fat, and correlate these characteristics with the mean and maximum standardized uptake values of brown fat. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This case-control study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Informed consent was waived. Reports of 12 195 consecutive positron emission tomography/computed tomography examinations performed in 6867 patients between January 2004 and November 2008 were reviewed for documented fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in brown fat (n = 298). Control patients (n = 298) without brown fat were chosen and matched for age, sex, and month and year of examination. Age, sex, weight, body mass index, ethnicity, and examination stage (initial vs restaging) were compared between groups. Paired Student t test, χ(2) test, Pearson correlation coefficient, and analysis of variance were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Uptake of FDG in brown fat was demonstrated in 298 of 6867 (4.33%) patients. Prevalence of brown fat was significantly higher in female (5.9% [211 of 3587]) than in male patients (2.65% [87 of 3280]; P < .001). Those with brown fat had significantly lower body weight (147.5 lb ± 3.8 vs 168.61 lb ± 5.0; P < .001) and body mass index (24.3 ± 0.54 vs 27.6 ± 0.77; P < .001) than control patients. There was no significant difference in the prevalence of brown fat among ethnic groups. The maximum standardized uptake value of brown fat had a significant inverse correlation with age (r = -0.3, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients with brown fat were more likely to be female and thinner than those without brown fat. Younger patients were more likely to have higher maximum standardized uptake values of brown fat.

Imaging of preoperative liver transplantation in adults: what radiologists should know.

Therapeutic strategies for treating patients with liver failure, particularly optimization of liver transplantation, are constantly being refined, with the goal of improving long-term survival with the lowest risk for toxicity in donors and recipients. Optimal planning for liver transplantation requires a multidisciplinary collaboration between the radiologist, hepatologist, clinical oncologist, and transplant surgeon. Radiologists play an essential role in identifying normal and abnormal variant anatomy and other conditions that may be present, a task that is critical for accurate surgical planning. Radiologists also must understand how their findings affect patient preparation. An awareness of the range of indications for liver transplantation, imaging modalities, and current surgical techniques is important to properly evaluate a patient who may undergo liver transplantation. Establishing a pretransplantation definition of the extent of liver disease and thoroughly evaluating the vascular and biliary anatomy are paramount for proper assessment of potential recipients and donors for liver transplantation.

Adrenal imaging: from Addison to algorithms.

Despite their small size, pathologic condition of the adrenal glands is often far from insignificant. Imagers should therefore be familiar with the principles and techniques that underpin the ability of imaging to characterize most lesions. Ignorance of these techniques fails to deliver the necessary imaging value to referrers and patients alike. This article, outlines the range of possible abnormalities encountered in the adrenal gland, the imaging modalities and specialized techniques used to detect and characterize them, the principles based on which these techniques are used, and finally a working imaging algorithm that can be readily used in daily practice.

Characterization of adrenal masses by using FDG PET: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data to determine the diagnostic utility of adrenal fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) for distinguishing benign from malignant adrenal disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on FDG PET assessment in MEDLINE and other electronic databases (from inception to November 2009) and in subject matter-specific journals were evaluated and compared with histologic diagnoses and/or established clinical and imaging follow-up results. Methodologic quality was assessed by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria. Bivariate random-effects meta-analytical methods were used to estimate summary and subgroup-specific sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic curves and to investigate the effects of study design characteristics and imaging procedure elements on diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: A total of 1391 lesions (824 benign, 567 malignant) in 1217 patients from 21 eligible studies were evaluated. Qualitative (visual) analysis of 841 lesions (in 14 reports) and quantitative analyses based on standardized uptake values (SUVs) for 824 lesions (in 13 reports) and standardized uptake ratios (SURs) for 562 lesions (in eight reports) were performed. Resultant data were highly heterogeneous, with a model-based inconsistency index of 88% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 79%, 98%). Mean sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio values for differentiating between benign and malignant adrenal disease were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.93, 0.98), 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87, 0.94), 11.1 (95% CI: 7.5, 16.3), 0.04 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.08), and 294 (95% CI: 107, 805), respectively, with no significant differences in accuracy among the visual, SUV, and SUR analyses. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of combination PET-computed tomography (CT) reports revealed that FDG PET was highly sensitive and specific for differentiating malignant from benign adrenal disease. Diagnostic accuracy was not influenced by the type of imaging device (PET vs PET/CT), but specificity was dependent on the clinical status (cancer vs no cancer).

Adrenal imaging.

Adrenal masses are frequently encountered in imaging practices. Simple detection by radiologists is insufficient as many of these masses can now be characterized by imaging alone. Some masses can be characterized by their simple appearances, but most cannot. This article will describe the different principles used by imagers to lead them to the correct diagnosis for the overwhelming majority of lesions. Imagers should be familiar with these techniques to expedite treatment, especially in cancer patients and so prevent unnecessary biopsies, costs, and anxiety.

Incidental adrenal lesions: accuracy of characterization with contrast-enhanced washout multidetector CT--10-minute delayed imaging protocol revisited in a large patient cohort.

PURPOSE: To reassess the accuracy of the 10-minute delayed scan to differentiate both lipid-rich and lipid-poor lesions in a large cohort of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant retrospective study had institutional review board approval; the need for informed consent was waived. A multidetector computed tomography (CT) adrenal protocol (unenhanced, dynamic contrast material-enhanced, and 10-minute delayed CT) was used in 314 consecutive patients (201 women, 113 men; mean age, 63.6 years) for the period from January 2006 through February 2009. The mean adrenal attenuation during all three CT phases was measured by two readers, and the relative percentage washout (RPW) and absolute percentage washout (APW) values were calculated. APW and RPW receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate the strength of the tests. RESULTS: There were 323 adrenal lesions (213 left, 110 right) consisting of 307 adenomas and 16 nonadenomas. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the RPW test at a washout threshold of 50% were 55.7%, 100%, and 57.9%, respectively; at 40% were 76.9%, 93.7%, and 77.7%; and at 35% were 81.4%, 93.7%, and 82.0%. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the APW test at a 60% threshold were 52.1%, 93.3%, and 54.0%, respectively; at 55% were 62.5%, 93.3%, and 64.0%; and at 50% were 71.3%, 80.0%, and 71.7%. Areas under the ROC curve were 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.75, 0.95) and 0.91 (95% confidence interval: 0.85, 0.97) for the APW and RPW tests, respectively, to detect adenomatous disease. CONCLUSION: The 10-minute delayed adrenal enhancement washout test has reduced sensitivity for the characterization of adrenal adenomas compared with results from prior studies.

Adrenal imaging.

OBJECTIVE: Adrenal nodules are frequently encountered on current high-resolution imaging, and accurate characterization of such lesions is critical for appropriate patient care. Our article highlights how imaging techniques such as CT densitometry, CT washout characteristics, chemical shift MRI, PET, and PET/CT help characterize most adrenal lesions. We focus on these techniques as well as specifically, because of space constraints, the varied imaging appearances of adrenocortical carcinoma, pheochromocytoma, and lymphoma on these techniques. CONCLUSION: The imaging characterization of adrenal lesions has continued to advance over the past decade as new technologies have evolved. CT, MRI, PET, and PET/CT are now established clinical techniques capable of differentiating benign from malignant adrenal lesions.