How We Got Here: The Legacy of Anti-Black Discrimination in Radiology.

Current disparities in the access to diagnostic imaging for Black patients and the underrepresentation of Black physicians in radiology, relative to their representation in the general U.S. population, reflect contemporary consequences of historical anti-Black discrimination. These disparities have existed within the field of radiology and professional medical organizations since their inception. Explicit and implicit racism against Black patients and physicians was institutional policy in the early 20th century when radiology was being developed as a clinical medical field. Early radiology organizations also embraced this structural discrimination, creating strong barriers to professional Black radiologist involvement. Nevertheless, there were numerous pioneering Black radiologists who advanced scholarship, patient care, and diversity within medicine and radiology during the early 20th century. This work remains important in the present day, as race-based health care disparities persist and continue to decrease the quality of radiology-delivered patient care. There are also structural barriers within radiology affecting workforce diversity that negatively impact marginalized groups. Multiple opportunities exist today for antiracism work to improve quality of care and to apply standards of social justice and health equity to the field of radiology. An initial step is to expand education on the disparities in access to imaging and health care among Black patients. Institutional interventions include implementing community-based outreach and applying antibias methodology in artificial intelligence algorithms, while systemic interventions include identifying national race-based quality measures and ensuring imaging guidelines properly address the unique cancer risks in the Black patient population. These approaches reflect some of the strategies that may mutually serve to address health care disparities in radiology. © RSNA, 2023 See the invited commentary by Scott in this issue. Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Active Surveillance Strategies for Low-Grade Prostate Cancer: Comparative Benefits and Cost-effectiveness.

Background Active surveillance (AS) is the recommended treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Surveillance varies in MRI, frequency of follow-up, and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score that would repeat biopsy. Purpose To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of AS strategies for low-risk PC with versus without MRI. Materials and Methods This study developed a mathematical model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies in a simulation of men with a diagnosis of low-risk PC. The following strategies were compared: watchful waiting, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and annual biopsy without MRI, and PSA testing and MRI with varied PI-RADS thresholds for biopsy. MRI strategies differed regarding scheduling and use of PI-RADS score of at least 3, or a PI-RADS score of at least 4 to indicate the need for biopsy. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated by using microsimulation. Sensitivity analysis was used to assess the impact of varying parameter values on results. Results For the base case of 60-year-old men, all strategies incorporating prostate MRI extended QALYs and life-years compared with watchful waiting and non-MRI strategies. Annual MRI strategies yielded 16.19 QALYs, annual biopsy with no MRI yielded 16.14 QALYs, and watchful waiting yielded 15.94 QALYs. Annual MRI with PI-RADS score of at least 3 or of at least 4 as the biopsy threshold and annual MRI with biopsy even after MRI with negative findings offered similar QALYs and the same unadjusted life expectancy: 23.05 life-years. However, a PI-RADS score of at least 4 yielded 42% fewer lifetime biopsies. With a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY, annual MRI with biopsy for lesions with PI-RADS scores of 4 or greater was most cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $67 221 per QALY). Age, treatment type, risk of initial grade misclassification, and quality-of-life impact of procedural complications affected results. Conclusion The use of active surveillance (AS) with biopsy decisions guided by findings from annual MRI reduces the number of biopsies while preserving life expectancy and quality of life. Biopsy in lesions with PI-RADS scores of 4 or greater is likely the most cost-effective AS strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer who are younger than 70 years. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. An earlier incorrect version appeared online. This article was corrected on July 13, 2021.

Prostate Cancer: Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging for Detection and Assessment of Aggressiveness-Comparison between Conventional and Kurtosis Models.

Purpose To compare standard diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging and diffusion kurtosis (DK) imaging for prostate cancer (PC) detection and characterization in a large patient cohort, with attention to the potential added value of DK imaging. Materials and Methods This retrospective institutional review board-approved study received a waiver of informed consent. Two hundred eighty-five patients with PC underwent 3.0-T phased-array coil prostate magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, including a DK imaging sequence (b values 0, 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 sec/mm2) before prostatectomy. Maps of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and diffusional kurtosis (K) were derived by using maximal b values of 1000 and 2000 sec/mm2, respectively. Mean ADC and K were obtained from volumes of interest (VOIs) placed on each patient's dominant tumor and benign prostate tissue. Metrics were compared between benign and malignant tissue, between Gleason score (GS) ≤ 3 + 3 and GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors, and between GS ≤ 3 + 4 and GS ≥ 4 + 3 tumors by using paired t tests, analysis of variance, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and exact tests. Results ADC and K showed significant differences for benign versus tumor tissues, GS ≤ 3 + 3 versus GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors, and GS ≤ 3 + 4 versus GS ≥ 4 + 3 tumors (P < .001 for all). ADC and K were highly correlated (r = -0.82; P < .001). Area under the ROC curve was significantly higher (P = .002) for ADC (0.921) than for K (0.902) for benign versus malignant tissue but was similar for GS ≤ 3 + 3 versus GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors (0.715-0.744) and GS ≤ 3 + 4 versus GS ≥ 4 + 3 tumors (0.694-0.720) (P > .15). ADC and K were concordant for these various outcomes in 80.0%-88.6% of patients; among patients with discordant results, ADC showed better performance than K for GS ≤ 3 + 4 versus GS ≥ 4 + 3 tumors (P = .016) and was similar to K for other outcomes (P > .136). Conclusion ADC and K were highly correlated, had similar diagnostic performance, and were concordant for the various outcomes in the large majority of cases. These observations did not show a clear added value of DK imaging compared with standard DW imaging for clinical PC evaluation. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using apparent diffusion coefficient values: impact of patient race and age.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of patient race and age on the performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 457 prostate cancer patients who underwent 3T phased-array coil prostate MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI; maximal b-value 1000 s/mm2) before prostatectomy were included. Mean ADC of a single dominant lesion was measured in each patient, using histopathologic findings from the prostatectomy specimen as reference. In subsets defined by race and age, ADC values were compared between Gleason score (GS) ≤ 3 + 4 and GS ≥ 4 + 3 tumors. RESULTS: 81% of patients were Caucasian, 12% African-American, 7% Asian-American. 13% were <55 years, 42% 55-64 years, 41% 65-74 years, and 4% ≥75 years. 63% were GS ≤ 3 + 4, 37% GS ≥ 4 + 3. ADC was significantly lower in GS ≥ 4 + 3 tumors than in GS ≤ 3 + 4 tumors in the entire cohort, as well as in Caucasian, African-American, and all four age groups (P ≤ 0.015). AUC for differentiation of GS ≤ 3 + 4 and GS ≥ 4 + 3 as well as optimal ADC threshold was Caucasian: 0.73/≤848; African-American: 0.76/≤780; Asian-American: 0.66/≤839: <55 years, 0.73/≤830; 55-64 years, 0.71/≤800; 65-74 years, 0.74/≤872; ≥75 years, 0.79/≤880. A race-optimized ADC threshold resulted in higher specificity in African-American than Caucasian men (84.9% vs. 67.1%, P = 0.045); age-optimized ADC threshold resulted in higher sensitivity in patients aged ≥75 years than <55 years or 55-64 years (100.0% vs. 53.6%-73.3%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients' race and age may impact the diagnostic performance and optimal threshold when applying ADC values for evaluation of prostate cancer aggressiveness.