Industry Relationships With Medical Oncologists: Who Are the High-Payment Physicians?

PURPOSE: Many oncologists have relationships with industry. Previous work has shown that these payments are usually modest; however, there exist a subset of medical oncologists who receive more than $100,000 US dollars (USD) annually. Here, we describe the characteristics of these physicians. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the Open Payments data set to identify all US-based medical oncologists/hematologists who received $100,000+ USD in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018. Open Payments and a web-based search were used to identify physician characteristics, demographics, research profile, and leadership positions. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine medical oncologists received > $100,000 USD in general payments. The median payment was $154,613 USD, and the total payment was $24.2 million USD. These high-payment physicians represent 1% of all US medical oncologists (N = 10,620) yet account for 37% of all industry payments in 2018. Sixty percent (84 of 139) and 21% (29 of 139) of these high-payment physicians hold hospital and specialty association leadership roles, respectively. One quarter (24%, 33 of 139) serve on journal editorial boards, and 10% (14 of 139) have authored clinical practice guidelines; 72% (100 of 139) hold faculty appointments. CONCLUSION: A small number of medical oncologists receive very high payments from the pharmaceutical industry. These physicians hold major leadership roles within oncology. Further work is needed to understand the extent to which these conflicts of interest may shape clinical practice and policy.

Diagnostic Radiology Residency Assessment Tools: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: The multifaceted nature of learning in diagnostic radiology residency requires a variety of assessment methods. However, the scope and quality of assessment tools has not been formally examined. A scoping review was performed to identify assessment tools available for radiology resident training and to evaluate the validity of these tools. METHODS: A literature search was conducted through multiple databases and on-line resources. Inclusion criteria were defined as any tool used in assessment of radiology resident competence. Data regarding residents, evaluators and specifics of each tool was extracted. Each tool was subjected through a validation process with a customized rating scale using the 5 categories of validity: content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences. RESULTS: The initial search returned 447 articles; 35 were included. The most evaluated competency being overall knowledge (31%), most common published journal was Academic Radiology (24%); evaluations were most commonly set in the United States (57%). In terms of validation, we found low adherence to modern integrated validity, with 34% of studies including a definition of validity. When specifically examining the 5 domains of validation evidence presented, most were either absent or of low rigor (70%). Only one study presented a modern definition of validation (3%, 1/35). CONCLUSION: We identified 35 evaluation tools covering a variety of competency areas. However, few of these tools have been validated. Development of new validated assessment tools or validation of existing tools is essential for the ongoing transition to a competency-based curriculum.

Effect of observation size and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value in PI-RADS v2.1 assessment category 4 and 5 observations compared to adverse pathological outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare observation size and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 category 4 and 5 observations to adverse pathological features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With institutional review board approval, 267 consecutive men with 3-T MRI before radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2012 and 2018 were evaluated by two blinded radiologists who assigned PI-RADS v2.1 scores. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. A third blinded radiologist measured observation size and ADC (ADC.mean, ADC.min [lowest ADC within an observation], ADC.ratio [ADC.mean/ADC.peripheral zone {PZ}]). Size and ADC were compared to pathological stage and Gleason score (GS) using t tests, ANOVA, Pearson correlation, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Consensus review identified 267 true positive category 4 and 5 observations representing 83.1% (222/267) PZ and 16.9% (45/267) transition zone (TZ) tumors. Inter-observer agreement for PI-RADS v2.1 scoring was moderate (K = 0.45). Size was associated with extra-prostatic extension (EPE) (19 ± 8 versus 14 ± 6 mm, p < 0.001) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) (24 ± 9 versus 16 ± 7 mm, p < 0.001). Size ≥ 15 mm optimized the accuracy for EPE with area under the ROC curve (AUC) and sensitivity/specificity of 0.68 (CI 0.62-0.75) and 63.2%/65.6%. Size ≥ 19 mm optimized the accuracy for SVI with AUC/sensitivity/specificity of 0.75 (CI 0.66-0.83)/69.4%/70.6%. ADC metrics were not associated with pathological stage. Larger observation size (p = 0.032), lower ADC.min (p = 0.010), and lower ADC.ratio (p = 0.010) were associated with higher GS. Size correlated better to higher Gleason scores (p = 0.002) compared to ADC metrics (p = 0.09-0.11). CONCLUSION: Among PI-RADS v2.1 category 4 and 5 observations, size was associated with higher pathological stage whereas ADC metrics were not. Size, ADC.minimum, and ADC.ratio differed in tumors stratified by Gleason score. KEY POINTS: • Among PI-RADS category 4 and 5 observations, size but not ADC can differentiate between tumors by pathological stage. • An observation size threshold of 15 mm and 19 mm optimized the accuracy for diagnosis of extra-prostatic extension and seminal vesicle invasion. • Among PI-RADS category 4 and 5 observations, size, ADC.minimum, and ADC.ratio differed comparing tumors by Gleason score.

Lack of Gender Disparity Among Administrative Leaders of Canadian Health Authorities.

Background: Gender distribution within the managing bodies of the Canadian health authorities has not been studied despite their integral role in the health care system. The purpose of this study is to quantify gender differences and to craft a geographic gender analysis of such distribution. Methods: Retrospective data collection of all Canadian health authorities at the provincial, territorial, regional, and first nations levels was conducted. The dependent variable was gender, and other covariates, where applicable, included province/territory, region, leadership position, education (PhD or Master's), honorary degree, and primary occupation. Any member within the executive managing body or board of directors of a Canadian health authority was included, unless their gender could not be determined, in which case they were excluded. Results: Quantitative analysis of the 67 health authorities revealed 1346 individuals with identifiable gender (710 women; 636 men). Thematic distribution showed no significant difference in the gender distribution by provinces/territories (chi square = 14.248; p = 0.28), by leadership position (chi square = 1.88; p = 0.75), by education (chi square = 1.85; p = 0.17), or by primary occupation (chi square = 1.53; p = 0.46). Conclusion: The overall number of females exceeded that of males and there were no gender disparities. Critical analysis of probable causes was discussed. Further studies should be conducted to examine the policies and programs within the Canadian health authorities that successfully tackle the retention, recruitment, and promotion of females.

Gender Disparity Among Leaders of Canadian Academic Radiology Departments.

OBJECTIVE. Underrepresentation of women in the top hierarchy of academic medicine exists despite women comprising more than half of the medical school graduates and residency positions. The purpose of this study is to analyze and quantify the relationship of gender, research productivity, and career advancement in Canadian academic radiology departments. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Seventeen academic radiology departments with affiliated residency programs in Canada were searched for publicly available data on faculty to generate a database for gender and academic profiles of the radiologists. Bibliometric data were collected using Scopus archives. The associations of gender, academic ranks, and leadership positions were assessed, and a p value of ≤ 0.05 was defined as significant. Significant variables were analyzed using a multivariate linear regression model. RESULTS. Of 1266 faculty members, gender information and academic rank were available for 932 faculty members: 597 (64.05%) were men and 335 (35.95%) were women (χ2 = 21.82; p < 0.0001). Of a total of 563 assistant professors, 331 (58.79%) were men and 232 (41.21%) were women; of 258 associate professors, 177 (68.60%) were men and 81 (31.40%) were women; and of 111 professors, 89 (80.18%) were men and 22 (19.82%) were women. The gender gap widens at higher academic ranks, displaying a threefold drop in the ratio of women holding the rank of full professor (6.57%) compared with 14.91% male professors; 29.55% of women radiologists have first-in-command leadership positions compared with 70.45% of men. A comparable or higher h-index is noted for women Canadian radiologists after adjusting for number of citations, number of publications, and years of active research. CONCLUSION. Canadian academic radiology departments have fewer women radiologists in senior faculty and leadership positions. Our study results show that Canadian female radiologists at the professor level have more publications than their male counterparts.

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, Version 2, Assessment Categories and Pathologic Outcomes in Patients With Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7 Prostate Cancer Diagnosed at Biopsy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess associations between Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2 (PI-RADSv2), categories and the presence of a tumor with a Gleason score (GS) of 4 + 3 = 7 or greater or the presence of extraprostatic extension (EPE) at radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with a GS 3 + 4 = 7 tumor at biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 81 men with GS 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer diagnosed by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy underwent multiparametric MRI and RP between 2012 and 2015. Two blinded radiologists assessed multiparametric MR images and assigned PI-RADSv2 assessment categories (categories 1-5) with the use of sector maps, which were compared with regard to the location of the tumor, the GS, and the presence of EPE at RP. Comparisons were performed between groups with the use of chi-square and multivariate analysis. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using ROC curve analysis, and localization was compared using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: A total of 53.1% of men (43/81) had EPE, and 21.0% (17/81) had GS 4 + 3 = 7 prostate cancer after RP, whereas 2.5% of men (2/81) had their tumors downgraded to GS 3 + 3 = 6. No statistically significant difference in patient age, prostate specific antigen level, or clinical stage existed between groups (p > 0.05). PI-RADSv2 assessment categories were significantly higher for GS 4 + 3 = 7 tumors (p = 0.03). PI-RADSv2 showed moderate accuracy for the diagnosis of GS 4 + 3 = 7 tumors (AUC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.77), with a category of 4 or higher having a sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of 94.1% and 23.4%, respectively. No patient with a PI-RADSv2 category lower than 3 had a GS 4 + 3 = 7 tumor. Accuracy of tumor localization ranged from 86.4% to 92.6%, with 88.2% of errors (15/17) occurring in GS 3 + 3 = 6 or GS 3 + 4 = 7 tumors (p = 0.30). PI-RADSv2 categories were noted to be higher when EPE was present (p < 0.001). Interobserver agreement was moderate (κ = 0.43). CONCLUSION: For GS 3 + 4 = 7 cancers detected at transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy, higher PI-RADSv2 assessment categories are associated with upgrading to GS 4 + 3 = 7 cancer and with the presence of EPE after RP. A PI-RADSv2 score of 3 or higher was 100% sensitive for diagnosing GS 4 + 3 = 7 tumors.

Prognostic value of Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PI-RADS) v. 2 assessment categories 4 and 5 compared to histopathological outcomes after radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: To assess Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PI-RADS) v. 2 score 4/5 lesions compared to Gleason score (GS) and stage after radical prostatectomy (RP) and to validate the proposed 15-mm size threshold that differentiates category 4 versus 5 lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, 140 men underwent 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and RP between 2012-2015. Two blinded radiologists: 1) assigned PI-RADS v. 2 scores, 2) measured tumor size on axial T2 -weighted-MRI, and 3) assessed for extraprostatic extension (EPE). Interobserver agreement was calculated and consensus diagnoses achieved through reference standard (MRI-RP maps). PI-RADS v. 2 scores and tumor size were compared to GS and stage using chi-square, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: In all, 80.7% (113/140) of tumors were category 4 (n = 45) or 5 (n = 68) lesions (κ = 0.45). Overall tumor size was 18.2 ± 7.7 mm and category 5 lesions were larger (22.6 ± 6.8 versus 11.5 ± 1.9 mm, P < 0.001). High-risk (GS ≥8) tumors were larger than low- and intermediate-risk tumors (P = 0.016) and were more frequently, but not significantly so, category 5 lesions (78.9% [15/19] vs. 22.1% [4/10], P = 0.18). 67.3% (76/113) of patients had EPE. Category 5 lesions were strongly associated with EPE (P < 0.0001). Area under the ROC curve for diagnosis of EPE by size was 0.74 (confidence interval 0.64-0.83), with size ≥15 mm yielding a sensitivity/specificity of 72.4/64.9%. Size improved sensitivity for diagnosis of EPE compared to subjective assessment (sensitivity/specificity ranging from 46.1-48.7%/70.3-86.5%, κ = 0.29) (P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: PI-RADS v. 2 category 5 lesions are associated with higher Gleason scores and EPE. A 15-mm size threshold is reasonably accurate for diagnosis of EPE with increased sensitivity compared to subjective assessment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;46:257-266.

MRI assessment of pathological stage and surgical margins in anterior prostate cancer (APC) using subjective and quantitative analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for assessment of extraprostatic extension (EPE) and positive surgical margins (PSM) in anterior prostate cancer (APC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: With Institutional Review Board approval, 25 APC (>2/3 of tumor anterior to urethra) were assessed using 3T MRI by two blinded radiologists for: size and maximal leading edge of tumor (relative to anterior fibromuscular stroma [AFMS]) on b ≥1000 sec/mm2 echo-planar-MRI fused onto T2 -weighted-MRI, invasion of AFMS and EPE. Comparisons were performed between APCs by EPE/PSM using chi-square, multivariable analysis, and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence of EPE and PSM were 52% (13/25) and 36% (9/25). Tumor sizes were larger with EPE (22.5 ± 8.4 vs. 14.7 ± 6.3, P = 0.02) and PSM (23.0 ± 9.3 vs. 16.4 ± 7.0, P = 0.06). Area under ROC curve (AUC-ROC) for the diagnosis of EPE by tumor size was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.95); ≥16 mm size = sensitivity/specificity 69.2/66.7%. Maximal leading edge of tumor was greater with EPE (2.4 ± 2.2 vs. -0.2 ± 3.0) and PSM (2.8 ± 2.3 vs. -0.3 ± 2.5), (P = 0.023, 0.031). AUC-ROC for diagnosis of EPE/PSM by leading edge was 0.78 (CI 0.57-0.97) and 0.75 (CI 0.56-0.94). A ≥1 mm leading edge yielded sensitivity/specificity of 76.9/75.0% and 77.8/62.5% for diagnosis of EPE/PSM. 60-72% (15-18/25) tumors invaded AFMS (k = 0.74), which was not associated with EPE/PSM (P = 0.12-0.14). Radiologists' assessment of EPE had sensitivity/specificity of 61.5-69.2/50.0-75.0% (k = 0.53). CONCLUSION: Tumor size and leading edge of tumor relative to AFMS may enable diagnosis of EPE and positive surgical margins in APC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;45:1296-1303.

Evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) PI-RADS scoring system for assessment of extra-prostatic extension in prostatic carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate extra-prostatic extension (EPE) comparing PI-RADS to non-standardized reporting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With IRB approval, 145 consecutive patients underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) and multi-parametric (T2W+DWI+DCE) MRI between 2012 and 2013. Eighty patients (66.3% with EPE) were staged without PI-RADS and 65 patients (64.6% with EPE) were staged using a 5-point PI-RADS scoring system. Studies were reported by fellowship-trained radiologists in routine clinical practice. Individual PIRADS scores were assessed using ROC to determine the score which optimized sensitivity/specificity. Diagnostic accuracy for EPE was compared with/without PI-RADS using the McNemar test. Subgroup analysis by radiologist experience was performed using Spearman correlation and chi-square. RESULTS: Area under ROC curve for EPE using PI-RADS was 0.62 and optimal sensitivity/specificity was achieved with PI-RADS score ≥ 3. Compared to non-standardized reporting, sensitivity for EPE improved with PI-RADS (59.5% [49.1-68.2] vs. 24.5% [16.7-31.2]), p=0.01; with no difference in specificity (68.0% [50.5-82.6]) vs. (75.0% [60.1-87.6]), p=0.06. Overall accuracy improved with PI-RADS (62.7% [49.6-73.6] vs. 42.0% [31.7-50.7%]), p=0.006. Diagnostic accuracy was better among experienced radiologists without PI-RADS (p=0.005); however, there was no difference in accuracy by reader experience using PI-RADS (p=0.24). CONCLUSION: The PI-RADS criteria for EPE improves sensitivity without reducing specificity. PI-RADS may reduce differences in accuracy by reader experience.