Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry Trends Among US Medicare Beneficiaries: 2005-2019.

INTRODUCTION: Bone density measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) volume, performance site and interpreters have changed in the US since 2005. The purpose of this report is to provide updated trends in DXA counts, rates, place of service and interpreter specialty for the Medicare fee-for-service population. METHODS: The 100 % Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Limited Data Set between 2005-2019 was used. DXA counts and annual rates per 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries were calculated. Annual distributions of scan performance location, provider type and interpreter specialty were described. Place of service trends (significance assigned at p < 0.05) of the mean annual share of DXA utilization were identified using linear regression. RESULTS: Annual DXA use per 10,000 beneficiaries peaked in 2008 at 832, declined to 656 in 2015 then increased (p < 0.001) by 38 per year to 807 in 2019. From 2005 to 2019 DXA performance in office settings declined from 70.7 % to 47.2 %. Concurrently, outpatient hospital (OH) DXA increased from 28.6 % to 51.7 %. In 2005, 43.5 % of DXAs were interpreted by radiologists. This increased (p < 0.001) in the office and OH, averaging 0.3 and 2.0 percentage points per year respectively, reaching 73.5 % in 2019. Interpretation by most non-radiologist specialties declined (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: From 2005-2019, total DXA use among Medicare beneficiaries declined reaching a nadir in 2015 then returned to 2005 levels by 2019. Office DXA declined since 2005 with 51.7 % of all scans now occurring in an OH setting. The proportion of DXAs interpreted by radiologists increased over time, reaching 73.5 % in 2019.

Reporting of Full-Length Femur Imaging to Detect Incomplete Atypical Femur Fractures: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

Incomplete atypical femur fractures (iAFFs) are associated with the long-term use of anti-resorptive therapies. Although X-rays are typically used to screen for iAFFs, images from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) offer an alternate method for detecting iAFFs. Although a previous 2019 ISCD Official Position on this subject exists, our task force aimed to update the literature review and to propose recommendations on reporting findings related to iAFFs that may be observed on DXA images. The task force recommended that full-length femur imaging (FFI) from DXA can be used as a screening tool for iAFFs. The presence of focal lateral cortical thickening and transverse lucencies should be reported, if identified on the FFI. This task force proposed a classification system to determine the likelihood of an iAFF, based on radiographic features seen on the FFI. Lastly, the task force recommended that the clinical assessment of prodromal symptoms (pain) is not required for the assessment of FFI.

DXA Reporting Updates: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

INTRODUCTION: Professional guidance and standards assist radiologic interpreters in generating high quality reports. Initially DXA reporting Official Positions were provided by the ISCD in 2003; however, as the field has progressed, some of the current recommendations require revision and updating. This manuscript details the research approach and provides updated DXA reporting guidance. METHODS: Key Questions were proposed by ISCD established protocols and approved by the Position Development Conference Steering Committee. Literature related to each question was accumulated by searching PubMed, and existing guidelines from other organizations were extracted from websites. Modifications and additions to the ISCD Official Positions were determined by an expert panel after reviewing the Task Force proposals and position papers. RESULTS: Since most DXA is now performed in radiology departments, an approach was endorsed that better aligns with standard radiologic reports. To achieve this, reporting elements were divided into required minimum or optional. Collectively, required components comprise a standard diagnostic report and are considered the minimum necessary to generate an acceptable report. Additional elements were retained and categorized as optional. These optional components were considered relevant but tailored to a consultative, clinically oriented report. Although this information is beneficial, not all interpreters have access to sufficient clinical information, or may not have the clinical expertise to expand beyond a diagnostic report. Consequently, these are not required for an acceptable report. CONCLUSION: These updated ISCD positions conform with the DXA field's evolution over the past 20 years. Specifically, a basic diagnostic report better aligns with radiology standards, and additional elements (which are valued by treating clinicians) remain acceptable but are optional and not required. Additionally, reporting guidance for newer elements such as fracture risk assessment are incorporated. It is our expectation that these updated Official Positions will improve compliance with required standards and generate high quality DXA reports that are valuable to the recipient clinician and contribute to best patient care.

Reporting Fewer Than Four Vertebrae: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

The precision for spine bone mineral density (BMD) worsens as vertebrae are excluded, so recommendations are needed for least significant change (LSC) for spine BMDs based on fewer than 4 vertebrae. The task force recommends re-analysis of each facility's L1-L4 in-house precision study to determine the precision in order to calculate the LSC for each combination of 2 or 3 reported vertebrae. The task force recommended not reporting spine BMDs based on single vertebral bodies for either the diagnosis or monitoring of osteoporosis. Specific data for studies assessing the precision of two non-contiguous vertebrae are mixed, but ultimately the task force recommended that spine BMD based on 2 non-contiguous vertebrae can be used for the diagnosis and monitoring of osteoporosis.

Bilateral hip DXA Reporting: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

INTRODUCTION: This position development conference (PDC) Task Force examined the use and reporting of bilateral hip bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. This was deemed appropriate as increased availability of Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) technology offering bilateral hip measurement resulted in more routine clinical use. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry Official Positions accept bilateral hip BMD measurement for clinical use but currently do not include recommendations for reporting those studies. METHODS: Four key questions regarding bilateral hip reporting were proposed by the PDC Steering Committee. Relevant literature was identified using PubMed. Questions included whether bilateral hip measurements are appropriate for diagnostic classification or monitoring, as well as which bilateral hip regions of interest should be reported for diagnosis and monitoring. Additionally, the appropriate nomenclature for bilateral hip acquisition was defined. RESULTS: The literature review demonstrated that bilateral hip measurement is appropriate and diagnostic classification should be based on the lowest T-score at the right or left side femoral neck or total hip; the mean T-score should not be used for diagnostic purposes. Mean bilateral total hip is preferred for BMD monitoring. The terms hip, or total hip were deemed appropriate nomenclature instead of femur or total proximal femur. CONCLUSION: Bilateral hip acquisition is clinically appropriate and reporting and nomenclature standards are offered herein when a bilateral hip study is acquired. In terms of future research, the impact of discordant hips on diagnosis and monitoring was identified as a significant knowledge gap.

Evaluation of Guideline Adherence and Subsequent Follow-Up Outcomes for Incidental Thyroid Nodules Detected in Hybrid Academic-Community Practice.

OBJECTIVE: Incidental thyroid nodules (ITNs) are common, and variability regarding follow-up and recommendation practices exist. The study purpose was to determine adherence to the American College of Radiology (ACR) ITN criteria and analyze recommendation outcomes. METHODS: ITNs listed in the impression section on computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography studies over a 6-month period were included. Report recommendations were compared with ACR white paper criteria for adherence (concordant recommendation) or nonadherence (discordant recommendation). Reader characteristics, further ITN workup, and pathology were recorded. A P value less than 0.05 was used for significance. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty patients (mean age, 64.6 years) were included with a median ITN size of 18-mm. Most nodules (289/350) were reported on computed tomography and were identified for follow-up due to size (235/350). Only 39 of 350 reports (11.1%) did not follow ACR recommendations. Patient age was significantly related to recommendation adherence ( P < 0.05) as opposed to radiologist practice type (ie, community-based or academic) which was not. Nonadherence most often involved recommending ultrasound follow-up for nonactionable small ITNs. The rate of fine-needle aspiration biopsy from concordant ITNs was significantly higher than discordant ITNs ( P < 0.05). Six patients, all with concordant recommendations, had malignant final pathology results. CONCLUSION: Recommendation adherence to the ACR ITN criteria was high, approaching 90%. Nonadherence was mostly due to recommending thyroid ultrasound when not indicated and was correlated with a younger patient age. The rate of fine-needle aspiration biopsy stemming from nonindicated ultrasounds was significantly lower and did not result in the diagnosis of any malignancies.

Unnecessary use of radiology studies in the diagnosis of inguinal hernias: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of inguinal hernias is predominantly based on physical exam, although imaging may be used in select cases. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of unnecessary imaging used in the diagnosis of inguinal hernias. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective inguinal hernia repair at a large academic health system in the U.S. from 2010 to 2017 were included. Within this cohort, we identified patients who received imaging 6 months prior to surgery. Through chart review of physical exam findings and imaging indications, we categorized patients into four imaging categories: unrelated, necessary, unnecessary, and borderline. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with receipt of unnecessary imaging. RESULTS: Of 2162 patients who underwent inguinal hernia surgery, 249 patients had related imaging studies 6 months prior to surgery. 47.0% of patients received unnecessary imaging. 66.9% and 33.1% of unnecessary studies were ultrasounds and CT scans, respectively. 24.5% of patients had necessary studies, while 28.5% had studies with borderline indications. On multivariable analysis, having a BMI between 25.0 and 29.9 kg/m2 was associated with receipt of unnecessary studies. Primary care providers and ED physicians were more likely to order unnecessary imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 50% of all patients who receive any related imaging prior to surgery had potentially unnecessary diagnostic radiology studies. This not only exposes patients to avoidable risks, but also places a significant economic burden on patients and our already-strained health system.

Long-term dysphagia resolution following POEM versus Heller myotomy for achalasia patients.

BACKGROUND: Heller myotomy (HM) has historically been considered the gold standard treatment for achalasia. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a less-invasive procedure and offers a quicker recovery. Although some studies have compared short-term outcomes of HM and POEM, predictors of long-term dysphagia resolution remain unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate patient-reported outcomes for achalasia patients who underwent either POEM or HM over a 9-year period. METHODS: Data from our single academic institutional foregut database were used to identify achalasia patients who underwent HM or POEM from 2009 to 2018. Electronic health record data were reviewed to obtain patient characteristics and operative data. Achalasia severity stages were established for each patient using esophagram findings from an attending radiologist blinded to the procedure type. Postoperative outcomes were assessed via telephone for patients with at least 9 months of follow-up using Eckardt dysphagia scores. Patient age, sex, type of operation, and duration of follow-up were included in a multivariable linear regression model with Eckardt score as the outcome. RESULTS: Our cohort included 141 patients (97 HM and 44 POEM). Eighty-two patients completed a phone survey at the 9 months or greater time interval (response rate = 58%). Mean Eckardt scores were 2.98 and 2.53 at a median follow-up of 3 years and 1 year for HM and POEM patients, respectively (an Eckardt score ≤ 3 is considered a successful myotomy). Lower stages of achalasia on esophagram (e.g., Stage 0 vs. Stage 4) were associated with greater dysphagia improvement. On multivariable analysis, operative approach was not associated with a statistically significant difference in dysphagia outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: POEM and HM were associated with similar rates of dysphagia resolution for achalasia patients at a median of 2 years of follow-up. Both procedures appear to be durable options for achalasia treatment.

Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography.

OBJECTIVE: Disparate results from the existing large CT colonography (CTC) trials suggest that 2D polyp detection is less sensitive than 3D detection, but no direct evidence exists to support this claim. Our goal was to assess the sensitivity of primary 2D polyp detection with cases from the Department of Defense CTC screening trial and compare results with the primary 3D evaluation and previous 2D CTC trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten radiologists, blinded to polyp findings, retrospectively interpreted 730 consecutive colonoscopy-proven CTC cases in asymptomatic adults using a primary 2D approach, with 3D reserved for problem solving. Primary 2D CTC performance was compared with the primary 3D CTC results from the original trial of 1,233 asymptomatic adults. The 10 2D reviewers were significantly more experienced in CTC interpretation (> 100 cases interpreted) than the six reviewers from the original 3D trial. RESULTS: Primary 2D CTC sensitivity for adenomas > or = 6 mm was 44.1% (56/127), compared with 85.7% (180/210) at 3D (p < 0.001). Sensitivity of 2D CTC for adenomas > or = 10 mm was 75.0% (27/36) compared with 92.2% (47/51) at 3D (p = 0.027). Similar sensitivity trends were seen for the by-patient analysis and for all polyps at the 6-mm and 10-mm thresholds. By-patient specificity for 2D evaluation at the 10-mm threshold was 98.1% (676/689), compared with 97.4% (1,131/1,161) at 3D evaluation (p = 0.336). CONCLUSION: Primary 2D CTC is less sensitive than primary 3D CTC for polyp detection in low-prevalence screening cohorts. The disappointing 2D sensitivity in this study was very similar to results obtained with primary 2D evaluation in previous CTC trials.