Concordance of MRI With Pathology for Primary Staging of Rectal Cancer in Routine Clinical Practice: A Single Institution Experience.

PURPOSE: MRI is the preferred imaging modality for primary staging of rectal cancer, used to guide treatment. Patients identified with clinical stage I disease receive upfront surgical resection; those with clinical stage II or greater undergo upfront neoadjuvant therapy. Although clinical under-/over-staging may have consequences for patients and presents opportunities for organ preservation, the correlation between clinical and pathologic staging in routine clinical practice within a single institute has not been fully established. METHODS: This retrospective, Institutional Review Board-approved study, conducted at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center with a multi-disciplinary rectal cancer disease center, included patients undergoing rectal MRI for primary staging January 1, 2018-August 30, 2020. Data collection included patient demographics, initial clinical stage via MRI report, pathologic diagnosis, pathologic stage, and treatment. The primary outcome was concordance of overall clinical and pathologic staging. Secondary outcomes included reasons for mismatched staging. RESULTS: A total 105 rectal adenocarcinoma patients (64 males, mean age 57 ± 12.7 years) had staging MRI followed by surgical resection. A total of 28 patients (27%) had mismatched under-/over- staging. Ten patients (10%) were understaged with mismatched T stage group (clinical stage I, pathologic stage II), five (5%) were understaged with mismatched N stage group (clinical stage I, pathologic stage III), and 13 (12%) were overstaged (clinical stage II-III, pathologic stage 0-I). Treatment matched concordance between clinical and pathologic stages was 86%. CONCLUSION: MRI for primary rectal cancer staging has high concordance with pathology. Future studies to assess strategies for reducing clinically relevant understaging would be beneficial.

Radiologists' Contribution to Variation in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Men With Prostate MRI.

OBJECTIVE: Assess radiologists' contribution to variation in clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). METHODS: This institutional review board-approved, retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary, academic, National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center with a multidisciplinary prostate cancer program. Men undergoing mpMRI examinations from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019, with elevated PSA (≥4 ng/mL) and biopsy within 6 months pre- or post-MRI or prostatectomy within 6 months post-mpMRI were included. Univariate and multivariable hierarchical logistic regression assessed impact of patient, provider, mpMRI examination, mpMRI report, and pathology factors on the diagnosis of Grade Group ≥ 2 csPCa. RESULTS: Study cohort included 960 MRIs in 928 men, mean age 64.0 years (SD ± 7.4), and 59.8% (555 of 928) had csPCa. Interpreting radiologist was not significant individually (P > .999) or combined with mpMRI ordering physician and physician performing biopsy or prostatectomy (P = .41). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 2 (odds ratio [OR] 0.18, P = .04), PI-RADS category 4 (OR 2.52, P < .001), and PI-RADS category 5 (OR 4.99, P < .001) assessment compared with no focal lesion; PSA density of 0.1 to 0.15 ng/mL/cc (OR 2.46, P < .001), 0.15 to 0.2 ng/mL/cc (OR 2.77, P < .001), or ≥0.2 ng/mL/cc (OR 4.52, P < .001); private insurance (reference = Medicare, OR 0.52, P = .001), and unambiguous extraprostatic extension on mpMRI (OR 2.94, P = .01) were independently associated with csPCa. PI-RADS 3 assessment (OR 1.18, P = .56), age (OR 0.99, P = .39), and African American race (OR 0.90, P = .75) were not. DISCUSSION: Although there is known in-practice variation in radiologists' interpretation of mpMRI, in our multidisciplinary prostate cancer program we found no significant radiologist-attributable variation in csPCa detection.

Clinical Impact of Second Opinion Radiology Consultation for Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the incidence and clinical significance of discrepancy in subspecialty interpretation of outside breast imaging examinations for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients presenting to a tertiary cancer center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study included patients presenting from July 2016 to March 2017 to a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center for second opinion after breast cancer diagnosis. Outside and second opinion radiology reports of 252 randomly selected patients were compared by two subspecialty breast radiologists to consensus. A peer review score was assigned, modeled after ACR's RADPEERTM peer review metric: 1-agree; 2-minor discrepancy (unlikely clinically significant); 3-moderate discrepancy (may be clinically significant); 4-major discrepancy (likely clinically significant). Among cases with clinically significant discrepancies, rates of clinical management change (management alterations including change in follow-up, neoadjuvant therapy use, and surgical management as a direct result of image review), and detection of additional malignancy were assessed through electronic medical record review. RESULTS: A significant difference in interpretation (scores = 3 or 4) was seen in 41 of 252 cases (16%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.7%-20.8%). The difference led to additional workup in 38 of 252 cases (15%, 95% CI 10.6%-19.5%) and change in clinical management in 18 of 252 cases (7.1%, 95% CI 4.0%-10.2%), including 15 of 252 with change in surgical management (6.0%, 95% CI, 3.0%-8.9%). An additional malignancy or larger area of disease was identified in 11 of 252 cases (4.4%, 95% CI, 1.8%-6.9%). CONCLUSION: Discrepancy between outside and second-opinion breast imaging subspecialists frequently results in additional workup for breast cancer patients, changes in treatment plan, and identification of new malignancies.

Wall suction-assisted image-guided therapeutic paracentesis: a safe and less expensive alternative to evacuated bottles.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and cost savings of using wall suction and plastic canisters instead of evacuated bottles, currently in short supply, to drain, and collect large amounts of fluid during image-guided paracentesis procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a hospital-based practice, 551 image-guided paracenteses were performed in 191 consecutive patients over a 10-month period, using wall suction to facilitate drainage. Total volume of fluid removed and complications were recorded. Complications were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. The pressure generated from the wall suction at our institution was measured using a manometer and compared to that of an empty evacuated bottle. Cost savings per procedure were estimated by calculating the difference in the price of supplies used to collect the average volume of fluid removed per procedure for each method. RESULTS: The mean volume of fluid removed per procedure was 3541 mL. Four (0.72%) complications occurred in 551 procedures. One grade I complication consisted of a prolonged puncture site leak of ascites. Three Grade III complications included infection, hypotension, and atrial fibrillation. All four complications appeared unrelated to the use of wall suction and were treated successfully. Maximum pressure generated from the wall suction at our institution was less than the initial pressure generated from an empty evacuated bottle. Estimated cost savings per procedure was $33.92. CONCLUSION: The use of wall suction and plastic canisters to drain and collect fluid during image-guided therapeutic paracenteses is a safe alternative to using evacuated glass bottles and reduces per-procedure costs.

Impact of provider-led, technology-enabled radiology management program on imaging.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to assess the impact of a provider-led, technology-enabled radiology medical management program on high-cost imaging use. METHODS: This study was performed in the ambulatory setting of an integrated healthcare system. After negotiating a risk contract with a major commercial payer, we created a physician-led radiology medical management program to help address potentially inappropriate high-cost imaging use. The radiology medical management program was enabled by a computerized physician order entry system with integrated clinical decision support and accountability tools, including (1) mandatory peer-to-peer consultation with radiologists before order completion when test utility was uncertain on the basis of order requisition; (2) quarterly practice pattern variation reports to providers; and (3) academic detailing for targeted outliers. The primary outcome measure was intensity of high-cost imaging, defined as the number of outpatient computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and nuclear cardiology studies per 1000 patient-months in the payer's panel. Chi-square test was used to assess trends. RESULTS: In 1.8 million patient-months from January 2004 to December 2009, 50,336 eligible studies were performed (54.1% CT, 40.3% MRI, 5.6% nuclear cardiology). There was a 12.0% sustained reduction in high-cost imaging intensity over the 5-year period (P < .001). The number of CT studies performed decreased from 17.5 per 1000 patient-months to 14.5 (P < .01); nuclear cardiology examinations decreased from 2.4 to 1.4 (P < .01) per 1000 patient-months. The MRI rate remained unchanged at 11 studies per 1000 patient-months. CONCLUSION: A provider-led radiology medical management program enabled through health information technology and accountability tools may produce a significant reduction in high-cost imaging use.