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.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Updates to Screening and Diagnosis.

In what is considered to be "a global problem," liver cancer has tripled in incidence in the United States over the past 20 to 30 years, and is now present in 7 per 100,000 Americans. Thus, screening for disease should be at the forefront to effectively treat high-risk populations. At the 2018 NCCN 23rd Annual Conference, Dr. Anne M. Covey discussed the updated NCCN Guidelines for the screening and diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma, which place ultrasound as the most cost-effective and least toxic primary screening option, with a screening interval of approximately 6 months for individuals considered to be at high risk.