Assessing the Relationship between Radiology Department Research Funding and Institutional Community Inclusion and Investment.

Background Health care access disparities and lack of inclusion in clinical research have been well documented for marginalized populations. However, few studies exist examining the research funding of institutions that serve historically underserved groups. Purpose To assess the relationship between research funding awarded to radiology departments by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Lown Institute Hospitals Index rankings for inclusivity and community benefit. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included radiology departments awarded funding from the NIH between 2017 and 2021. The 2021 Lown Institute Hospitals Index rankings for inclusivity and community benefit were examined. The inclusivity metric measures how similar a hospital's patient population is to the surrounding community in terms of income, race and ethnicity, and education level. The community benefit metric measures charity care spending, Medicaid as a proportion of patient revenue, and other community benefit spending. Linear regression and Pearson correlation coefficients (r values) were used to evaluate the relationship between aggregate NIH radiology department research funding and measures of inclusivity and community benefit. Results Seventy-five radiology departments that received NIH funding ranging from $195 000 to $216 879 079 were included. A negative correlation was observed between the amount of radiology department research funding received and institutional rankings for serving patients from racial and/or ethnic minorities (r = -0.34; P < .001), patients with low income (r = -0.44; P < .001), and patients with lower levels of education (r = -0.46; P < .001). No correlation was observed between the amount of radiology department research funding and institutional rankings for charity care spending (r = -0.19; P = .06), community investment (r = -0.04; P = .68), and Medicaid as a proportion of patient revenue (r = -0.10; P = .22). Conclusion Radiology departments that received more NIH research funding were less likely to serve patients from racial and/or ethnic minorities and patients who had low income or lower levels of education. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Mehta and Rosen in this issue.

Optimizing the Patient Experience in Breast Imaging Facilities: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Breast imaging studies are complex examinations for patients and providers. Breast imaging providers and organizations invest significant resources in educating patients and referring providers to address variability in changing breast cancer screening recommendations, cultural biases, and socioeconomic barriers for patients. The breast imaging examination frequently involves multiple imaging modalities including interventional procedures, thus requiring multiple room types. Practices need to consider variables that affect workflow efficiency throughout the process of scheduling, examination performance, interpretation, and results delivery, as well as options in facilities design to create inviting yet functional environments for patients. Breast imaging appointments provide opportunity to capture individual breast cancer risk and to engage patients in health education and breast screening awareness. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review discusses ways in which breast imaging facilities can optimize patient experience throughout the complex process of a breast imaging examination, based on the authors' observations and opinions that include private and academic breast imaging experience.

Demystifying Breast Disease Markers.

Breast imaging radiologists regularly perform image-guided biopsies of suspicious breast lesions based on features that are associated with a likelihood of malignancy ranging from 2% to greater than 95% (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories 4 and 5). As diagnostic partners, pathologists perform histopathologic assessment of these tissue samples to confirm a diagnosis. Correlating the imaging findings with the histopathologic results is an integral aspect of multidisciplinary breast care. Assessment of radiologic-pathologic concordance is vital in guiding appropriate management, as it enables identification of discordant results, minimizing the chance of misdiagnosis. Undersampling can lead to false-negative results, with the frequencies of false-negative diagnoses varying on the basis of multiple factors, including biopsy type (eg, core needle, vacuum-assisted needle), needle gauge, and type of lesion sampled at biopsy (ie, mass, calcifications, asymmetry, architectural distortion). Improving a radiologist's knowledge of macroscopic and microscopic breast anatomy and more common breast diseases and their expected imaging findings ensures more accurate radiologic-pathologic correlation and management recommendations. The histopathologic and molecular characteristics of biopsy-sampled breast lesions aid in making an accurate diagnosis. Hematoxylin-eosin staining provides critical morphologic details, whereas immunohistochemical staining enables molecular characterization of many benign and malignant lesions, which is critical for tailored treatment. The authors review commonly encountered benign and malignant breast diseases, their corresponding histopathologic phenotypes, and the histopathologic markers that are essential to clinching the diagnosis of these entities. As part of a multidisciplinary team that provides optimal patient care, radiologists should be knowledgeable of the foundations of histopathologic diagnosis and the implications for patient management to ensure appropriate radiologic-pathologic concordance. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Imaging and management of fibroepithelial breast lesions on percutaneous core needle biopsy.

The purpose of this study is to review the clinical presentation, multi-modality appearance, and management of the most common benign and malignant fibroepithelial lesions of the breast. Fibroepithelial lesions of the breast may exhibit characteristic features on mammography, ultrasound, and MRI, although definitive diagnosis most often requires biopsy and at times, surgical excision. Knowledge of the imaging features can assist in refining the differential diagnosis and guiding appropriate management.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Systematic Guide to Interpretation and Reporting.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to discuss the essential steps involved in performing, interpreting, managing, and reporting findings on contrast-enhanced mammography for successful implementation into clinical practice. CONCLUSION: To successfully implement contrast-enhanced mammography into clinical practice, an understanding about the acquisition of images, image interpretation, and reporting of the spectrum of negative, benign, and malignant findings is essential.

Potential role of abbreviated MRI for breast cancer screening in an academic medical center.

The purpose is to determine whether an abbreviated MRI protocol (ABMR) is ready to be used for breast cancer screening in an academic practice setting. Two hundred and fifty nine breast MRIs from 1/1/2012 to 6/30/2012 were retrospectively reviewed using ABMR (MIP, Pre-contrastT1, single dynamic post-contrastT1, and subtraction). Five breast radiologists (4-28 year-expr) participated in this reader study performed in two phases: Phase1 - radiologist's privy to clinical history but not to comparison imaging. Phase2 - radiologists provided comparison imaging. For phase1, studies were reviewed using three steps: (a) MIP only (positive/negative/intermediate); (b) ABMR (recall/no recall) and (c) With T2 (for changes in recommendations). Radiologist also recorded total time for interpretation. In Phase2 the MRIs coded as "recall" were re-reviewed with available comparison studies, noting changes in final recommendation. The abnormal interpretation rates (AIRs) were calculated for phase1 and phase2 results with comparison to the original full protocol. Of the 259 patients (avg. age-52 years; range 26-78), there were seven cancers (three invasive, three DCIS and one breast lymphoma). Acquisition time for ABMR was 3 minutes, ABMR + T2-8 minutes, and original full protocol 16 minutes. Average MIP was positive or indeterminate in 86% (6/7) and negative in 14% (1/7) cancers. The average AIR for MIP only was 20.8% (sens-77.1%; spec-80.8%. The AIR w/o comparisons was 25.6% (sens-91.4%; spec- 76.2%); however the average AIR decreased in phase 2 with comparisons to 13.7% (sens-91.4%; spec-88.5%). The AIR of the original full protocol read was 16.2% (sens-100%; spec-85.7%). Addition of T2 changed assessment in only 3% (1.2%-6.5%). Avg. read time for ABMR including T2 was 2.5 minutes (1.6-4.0 minutes). ABMR is reliable for breast cancer screening, with acceptable interpretation time and acceptable AIR.

Breast MRI ordering practices in a large health care network.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate providers' ordering practices and perceptions of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in an academic network in order to better understand and educate a referral base. An online survey was distributed to primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists in our hospital and community practices. Questions included provider demographics, current ordering practices, challenges to ordering, and perceptions about breast MRI. Of 525 ordering providers, 134 responded (26% response rate). Of 134 providers, 57 (42%) order breast MRI in practice. Of those who do not, the most consistent reason was a lack of familiarity with the use of breast MRI (32/77 [42%] of cases). Of 57 cases, 45 (79%) order less than 10 exams annually. The most frequent indication is for high-risk screening (40/47 [84%]). PCPs order fewer breast MRI compared with specialists (P = 0.01). Both PCPs and specialists have mixed perceptions of the clinical utility of breast MRI. However, 30% of all providers are ordering more breast MRI since the enactment of breast density legislation in Massachusetts. Furthermore, 29% report they would order breast MRI more often to screen women with dense breasts if there was a low cost option. Referring provider surveys are useful tools for assessing a radiology practice. Our study suggests a growing clinical interest in breast MRI for screening; however, there is a need for provider education on the clinical utility of breast MRI. Increasing the radiologist's role in targeted educational interventions may help improve awareness and lead to more appropriate utilization of resources.

Mesenchymal Lesions of the Breast: What Radiologists Need to Know.

OBJECTIVE: Mesenchymal breast tumors originate from the various components of mammary stroma. The aim of this review is to discuss the clinical presentation, imaging appearance, and management of mesenchymal breast lesions. CONCLUSION: Although many mesenchymal tumors exhibit characteristic findings on imaging, others show nonspecific characteristics and require tissue biopsy for diagnosis. An awareness of the clinical and imaging presentation is essential in guiding the differential diagnosis and patient management.

Running a Radiology Residency Program: Strategies for Success.

Running a successful radiology residency program requires departments to navigate the evolving educational landscape at the departmental, institutional, and national levels. To attract the best applicants, departments must invest time and money to support the leadership of the program and its faculty to provide innovative educational opportunities in a positive learning environment while simultaneously complying with all of the requirements of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The key administrative requirements of a successful radiology residency program are described and can be grouped into (a) essential administrative components, (b) the clinical learning environment review and self-study process, and (c) resident recruitment. Ten specific strategies for running a successful residency program are also presented. The goal is for this article to serve as a guide for not only existing diagnostic and interventional radiology residency programs but also newly formed programs that are in the process of seeking accreditation. ©RSNA, 2018.

Proposed biopsy performance benchmarks for MRI based on an audit of a large academic center.

Performance benchmarks exist for mammography (MG); however, performance benchmarks for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are not yet fully developed. The purpose of our study was to perform an MRI audit based on established MG and screening MRI benchmarks and to review whether these benchmarks can be applied to an MRI practice. An IRB approved retrospective review of breast MRIs was performed at our center from 1/1/2011 through 12/31/13. For patients with biopsy recommendation, core biopsy and surgical pathology results were reviewed. The data were used to derive mean performance parameter values, including abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), positive predictive value (PPV), cancer detection rate (CDR), percentage of minimal cancers and axillary node negative cancers and compared with MG and screening MRI benchmarks. MRIs were also divided by screening and diagnostic indications to assess for differences in performance benchmarks amongst these two groups. Of the 2455 MRIs performed over 3-years, 1563 were performed for screening indications and 892 for diagnostic indications. With the exception of PPV2 for screening breast MRIs from 2011 to 2013, PPVs were met for our screening and diagnostic populations when compared to the MRI screening benchmarks established by the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 5 Atlas® . AIR and CDR were lower for screening indications as compared to diagnostic indications. New MRI screening benchmarks can be used for screening MRI audits while the American College of Radiology (ACR) desirable goals for diagnostic MG can be used for diagnostic MRI audits. Our study corroborates established findings regarding differences in AIR and CDR amongst screening versus diagnostic indications.

Ensuring Clarity and Understandability of the FDA's Breast Density Notifications.

This Viewpoint discusses the use of breast density notifications to inform women with dense breast tissue of the potential need for supplemental cancer screening, as well as the need to ensure that such notifications are clear and understandable to women of all language backgrounds, literacy levels, educational levels, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Breast-Conserving Surgery Alone for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Factors Associated with Increased Risk of Local Recurrence.

PURPOSE: This retrospective study was aimed at identifying clinicopathologic characteristics associated with an increased risk for ipsilateral local recurrence (LR) in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with wide local excision (WLE) alone without radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: All patients with DCIS treated with WLE alone at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA, between the years 2000 and 2010 were identified. We collected data on demographics, parity, personal or family history of breast cancer, exogenous hormone use, tobacco use, comorbidities, genetic mutation carrier status, imaging interval, and tumor-specific characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 222 patients were included in the study. Median follow-up time was 8 years. LR occurred in 9% of patients, with a recurrence rate of 11.3 per 1000 person-years. The risk of recurrence was lower for patients with nuclear grade (NG) I tumors than for patients with NG II or NG III tumors (3, 8.5, and 19%, respectively; p = 0.01). The median margin width was 1 mm in patients experiencing LR versus 1.8 mm in patients without LR (p = 0.3). Patients who had used exogenous hormones, or patients with a history of tobacco use, had higher rates of LR than those who did not, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that higher NG, narrower margin width, use of exogenous hormones, and smoking history may be associated with an increased risk of LR. The evaluation of these factors may be helpful when considering whether or not to use adjuvant RT for patients with DCIS.

Clinical Value of Mammography in the Evaluation of Palpable Breast Lumps in Women 30 Years Old and Older.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether mammography adds clinical value in the diagnostic imaging workup of women 30 years old and older who present with palpable breast lumps. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified the records of all women 30 years old and older who underwent imaging evaluation with mammography and ultrasound for a palpable lump between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010. Imaging reports were reviewed for findings related to the lump and for incidental nonpalpable findings. Benign versus malignant outcomes were determined by pathologic analysis or 24-month imaging or clinical follow-up. The contribution of mammography to final diagnosis was assessed on the basis of objective criteria to determine the clinical impact of mammographic findings. RESULTS: The study cohort included 861 patients presenting with 935 palpable lumps. Imaging correlates were reported for 568 of 935 (60.7%) lumps, and imaging findings were negative in 367 of 935 (39.3%). Of the 935 palpable lumps, 858 (91.8%) were benign and 77 (8.2%) were malignant. Mammography added clinical value in the evaluation of 27 of 77 (35.0%) malignant lumps by better delineating extent of disease and in the evaluation of 26 of 858 benign lumps (3.0%) by confirming benignity. Fifty-two of 861 (6.0%) patients had incidental findings that led to a recommendation for biopsy. Twenty-nine of the 52 findings were originally seen with mammography and 23 with ultrasound. Mammography also depicted seven incidental malignancies in nonpalpable areas, and ultrasound depicted one incidental malignancy. CONCLUSION: Adjunct mammography is warranted for evaluation of palpable breast lumps in women 30 years old and older because of the value added to clinical management. In all age cohorts, mammography contributed to delineation of disease extent, detection of incidental malignancies, and confirmation of benign diagnoses.