What referring clinicians value most: Accuracy of radiology results and personal interactions with radiologists.

PURPOSE: We sought to identify which aspects of the referring clinician experience are most strongly correlated with overall satisfaction, and hence of greatest relevant importance to referring clinicians. METHODS: A survey instrument assessing referring clinician satisfaction throughout 11 domains of the radiology process map was distributed 2720 clinicians. The survey contained sections assessing each process map domain, with each section including a question about satisfaction overall in that domain and multiple more granular questions. The final question on the survey was overall satisfaction with the department. Univariate logistic regression and multivariate logistic regression were performed to assess the association between individual survey questions and overall satisfaction with the department. RESULTS: 729 referring clinicians (27%) completed the survey. Using univariate logistic regression nearly every question was associated with overall satisfaction. Amongst the 11 domains of the radiology process map multivariate logistic regression identified the following as mostly strongly associated with overall satisfaction: results/reporting overall (odds ratio 4.71; 95% confidence interval 2.15-10.23), section with which work most closely overall (3.39; 1.28-8.64), and inpatient radiology overall (2.39; 1.08-5.08). Other survey questions associated with overall satisfaction on multivariate logistic regression were attending radiologist interactions (odds ratio 3.71; 95% confidence interval 1.54-8.69), timeliness of inpatient radiology results (2.91; 1.01-8.09), technologist interactions (2.15; 0.99-4.40), appointment availability for urgent outpatient studies (2.01; 1.08-3.64), and guidance for selecting correct imaging study (1.88; 1.04-3.34). CONCLUSION: Referring clinicians value most the accuracy of the radiology report and their interactions with attending radiologists, particularly within the section they work most closely.

Low-Volume and High-Volume Readers of Neurological and Musculoskeletal MRI: Achieving Subspecialization in Radiology.

OBJECTIVE: Differentiate high- versus low-volume radiologists who interpret neurological (Neuro) MRI or musculoskeletal (MSK) MRI and measure the proportion of Neuro and MSK MRIs read by low-volume radiologists. METHODS: We queried the 2015 Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File for radiologists who submitted claims for Neuro or MSK MRIs. Radiologists were classified as high-volume versus low-volume based on their work relative value units (wRVUs) focus or volume of studies interpreted using three different methodologies: Method 1, percentage of wRVUs in Neuro or MSK MRI; Method 2, absolute number of Neuro or MSK MRIs interpreted; and Method 3, both percentage and absolute number. Multiple thresholds with each methodology were tested, and the percentage of Neuro or MSK MRIs interpreted by low-volume radiologists was calculated for each threshold. RESULTS: With Method 1, 33% of Neuro MRI and 50% of MSK MRI studies were interpreted by a radiologist whose wRVUs in Neuro or MSK MRI were less than 20% (Method 1). With Method 2, 22% of Neuro MRIs and 37% of MSK MRIs were interpreted by radiologists who read fewer than the mean number of Neuro or MSK MRIs interpreted by an "average full-time radiologist" whose wRVUs in Neuro or MSK MRI were approximately 20%. With Method 3, 38% of Neuro MRIs and 57% of MSK MRIs were interpreted by "low-volume" radiologists. If instead a 50% wRVU threshold is used for Methods One, Two, and Three, then 70%, 58%, and 77% of Neuro MRIs and 86%, 80%, and 90% of MSK MRIs are read by low-volume radiologists. DISCUSSION: A large number of radiologists read a low volume of Neuro or MSK MRIs; these low-volume Neuro or MSK MRI radiologists read a substantial portion of Neuro or MSK MRIs. It is unknown which of the methods for distinguishing low-volume radiologists, combined with which threshold, may best correlate with high-performing or low-performing radiologists.

Peer learning on a shoe string: success of a distributive model for peer learning in a community radiology practice.

PURPOSE: To describe our 3-year experience operating a peer learning program with minimal resources, calculate the cost of the program, and compare participants' attitudes toward peer learning to the historical peer review system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The peer learning conference is held monthly for 1 h via a web-based video conferencing platform. Case identification, curation, and conference presentation are performed by individual radiologists. Using national estimates for unit costs of radiologist time and other inputs, we calculated the marginal cost of the peer learning program to the medical group. After 21 months of holding the conference, we conducted an anonymous survey to assess the impact of the conference and how it may be improved. RESULTS: A peer learning conference was established for a 24- person community-based practice, which is part of a large multi-disciplinary medical group. Cases discussed included diagnostic errors, technologist errors, good calls, and challenging cases. Total annual cost of the program is $3288. Survey respondents had overall positive views of the conference and strongly preferred peer learning to the existing peer review system in place, with 80% of respondents rating peer learning more favorably than peer review on education value, supportive environment, and punitive process, and 70% more positively on culture of blaming. CONCLUSION: We established a peer learning program with minimal resources. Radiologists in the group strongly prefer the peer learning conference over the existing peer review program in place. A peer learning program can be successfully started and sustained with limited resources.

What is the added sensitivity of non-lateral cervical spine radiographs in the evaluation of acute cervical spine trauma?

PURPOSE: Plain radiography of the cervical spine is used as a screening test for trauma patients. We evaluated the diagnostic yield of performing anteroposterior (AP), odontoid, and oblique views in addition to the lateral view in the current era when radiographs are performed only on low-risk patients. METHODS: All imaging reports from cervical spine radiography studies on patients aged 18 years and older in the emergency room of a major academic medical center between November 22, 2003, and January 17, 2012, were retrospectively reviewed. For the clinical workflow employed at the time of study acquisition, radiologists prospectively reviewed the lateral projection and subsequently reviewed the entirety of the images obtained. Exam reports and, when necessary, images were reviewed to determine which patients had fractures and on which projection the fractures were identified. RESULTS: Six fractures were detected in 7218 exams. Three of these fractures were identified on the lateral radiograph, and three of these fractures were visualized on the additional projections (two on oblique and one on odontoid views). The yield of the additional projections is one fracture per 9713 radiographic projections (90% confidence interval of one fracture per 1245-47,946 examinations). For two of the patients with fractures identified on the lateral projection, an additional fracture was seen when CT was then performed. CONCLUSIONS: Performing additional radiographs of the cervical spine including AP, odontoid, and bilateral oblique projections in trauma patients with low pretest probability of fracture augments the diagnostic yield of lateral radiographs. Considering the potential for devastating neurological outcomes from missed cervical fractures, addition of AP, odontoid, and oblique projections continues to detect fractures at a low rate.

CT-Guided Percutaneous Lung Biopsies in Patients With Suspicion for Infection May Yield Clinically Useful Information.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess the frequency and time frame with which CT-guided lung biopsies for suspected infection yield information that can affect patient management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All CT-guided lung biopsies over a 68-month period performed for the purpose of diagnosing a suspected infection were reviewed to determine the proportion that yielded information affecting patient management. Patients were included if infection was the only consideration causing the pulmonary lesion in question. RESULTS: Twenty-one biopsies were performed to identify a specific organism causing infection in patients with suspected infection; all patients were receiving antibiotics, 20 (95%) were immunocompromised, and 15 (71%) had undergone a prior bronchoscopy. Material collected from the biopsy provided a diagnosis in nine (43%) patients, whereas the biopsy results were nondiagnostic in the remaining 12 (57%). Of the nine patients for whom the biopsy yielded a diagnosis, eight biopsies revealed the species causing an infection (38%) and one biopsy (5%) detected posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease. Of the nine diagnoses, management was changed as a result of the biopsy in six patients (29% of all patients). The organisms identified by CT-guided lung biopsy in eight patients were fungi of the order Mucorales (i.e., mucormycosis) (n = 3), Aspergillus (n = 3), Pseudomonas (n = 1), and Nocardia (n = 1). The mean elapsed time between biopsy and pathologic diagnosis was 4 days (median, 3 days). There was no association between prior bronchoscopy and nondiagnostic biopsy results. CONCLUSION: CT-guided lung biopsies in patients with a high pretest suspicion for infection result in information sufficient to change patient management in 29% of patients. Organisms identified in these patients were most frequently fungi.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tomosynthesis in Annual Screening Mammography.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of annual screening tomosynthesis to 2D digital mammography alone for women beginning at 40 years old and to determine differences for age decade subgroups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Decision-tree analysis comparing annual tomosynthesis versus 2D mammography alone from a federal payer perspective and lifetime horizon was created from published multiinstitutional data, published institutional data, literature values, and Medicare reimbursement rates. Cost-effectiveness was calculated through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefit calculations. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the implication of different variables including changes in recall rate and disutility for false-positives. RESULTS: Base-case analysis showed an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained for tomosynthesis over 2D alone for all ages (≥ 40 years old) of $20,230, 40- to 49-year-old subgroup of $20,976, 50- to 59-year-old subgroup of $49,725, 60- to 69-year-old subgroup of $44,641, and ≥ 70-year-old subgroup of $82,500. Net monetary benefit per decade in the 40- to 49-year-old subgroup was $1,598, 50- to 59-year-old subgroup of $546, 60- to 69-year-old subgroup of $535, and ≥ 70-year-old subgroup of $501. Tomosynthesis was the better strategy in 63.2% of the iterations according to probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Addition of annual screening tomosynthesis to 2D mammography beginning at the age of 40 years was cost-effective compared with 2D mammography alone in our analysis. Three times greater net monetary benefits were found in women 40-49 years old compared with those 50-59 years old.

Nondiagnostic Computed Tomography-guided Percutaneous Lung Biopsies Are More Likely When Infection Is Suspected.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence of nondiagnostic computed tomography-guided lung biopsy results, stratified by biopsy indication, and determine the final diagnosis in such cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following institutional review board approval, pathology results from CT-guided lung biopsies over a 5-year period at 2 institutions were categorized as diagnostic or nondiagnostic. Each biopsy's indication was categorized as being for a lesion considered likely to be cancer, infection, or uncertain. For all nondiagnostic biopsies, the medical chart was reviewed to determine the final clinical diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 660 biopsies were evaluated, 139 (21%) of which were nondiagnostic. Of these 139 patients, the final clinical diagnosis was infection in 37%, cancer in 30%, and a benign noninfectious diagnosis in 10%; 23% remained undiagnosed at last available follow-up. Among the patients in whom there was a high pretest suspicion for cancer, 13% were nondiagnostic, 45% of which were cancer and 27% were infection. Among biopsies of lesions with pretest probability for both cancer and infection, 51% were nondiagnostic; on clinical follow-up these were determined to be infection in 34% and cancer in 14%. When there was high pretest suspicion for infection, 73% were nondiagnostic, of which 13% were cancer on clinical follow-up, and 88% were infection. The rate of nondiagnostic biopsies was statistically significantly different (P<0.001) among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nondiagnostic biopsies are common and occur most frequently when there is a moderate or high pretest suspicion for infection. Among all nondiagnostic biopsies, regardless of indication, cancer and infection were diagnosed on follow-up in similar proportions.

Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography.

PURPOSE: To examine recall rates from screening mammography and the mammographic findings that caused recall in women who underwent digital breast tomosynthesis with conventional mammography (referred to as two-dimensional [ 2D two-dimensional ] with three-dimensional [ 3D three-dimensional ] imaging [ 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional ]) and in women who underwent conventional mammography alone (referred to as 2D two-dimensional ). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study with waivers of informed consent. A retrospective review of 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional and 2D two-dimensional screening mammograms from August 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012, was performed. Recall rates and abnormalities that caused recall were compared by controlling for differences in patient age, breast density, and risk factors. Cancer detection rate was assessed from this time period and from 1 year before the introduction of tomosynthesis for a historic control. RESULTS: This study included 17 955 screening mammograms; of the total, there were 8591 (47.8%) 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional screening examinations and 9364 (52.2%) 2D two-dimensional examinations. The recall rate was 7.8% (671 of 8592) for 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional and 12.3% (1154 of 9364) for 2D two-dimensional (P < .0001); the rate of recall was 36.6% lower in the 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional group than in the 2D two-dimensional group. Recall rates for the 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional group were significantly lower for patients with asymmetries, ( 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional vs 2D two-dimensional , 3.1% [267 of 8591] vs 7.4% [689 of 9364], respectively; P < .0001) and calcifications ( 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional vs 2D two-dimensional , 2.4% [205 of 8591] vs 3.2% [297 of 9364], respectively; P = .0014). For patients with masses and architectural distortion, the difference in recall rates was not significant (masses: 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional vs 2D two-dimensional , 2.5% [215 of 8591] vs 2.5% [237 of 9364], respectively; P = .90; architectural distortion: 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional vs 2D two-dimensional , 0.68% [58 of 8591] vs 0.69% [65 of 9364]; P = .88). Cancer detection was highest in the 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional group at 5.9 cancers per 1000 examinations, with 5.7 cancers per 1000 examinations in the concurrent 2D two-dimensional group, and 4.4 cancers per 1000 examinations in the historic control. CONCLUSION: Use of tomosynthesis ( 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional ) compared with conventional mammography ( 2D two-dimensional ) is associated with a lower recall rate of screening mammography, most often for asymmetries.

Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening.

PURPOSE: To compare screening recall rates and cancer detection rates of tomosynthesis plus conventional digital mammography to those of conventional digital mammography alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients presenting for screening mammography between October 1, 2011, and September 30, 2012, at four clinical sites were reviewed in this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, for which the institutional review board granted approval and waived the requirement for informed consent. Patients at sites with digital tomosynthesis were offered screening with digital mammography plus tomosynthesis. Patients at sites without tomosynthesis underwent conventional digital mammography. Recall rates were calculated and stratified according to breast density and patient age. Cancer detection rates were calculated and stratified according to the presence of a risk factor for breast cancer. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the effect of screening method, breast density, patient age, and cancer risk on the odds of recall from screening. RESULTS: A total of 13 158 patients presented for screening mammography; 6100 received tomosynthesis. The overall recall rate was 8.4% for patients in the tomosynthesis group and 12.0% for those in the conventional mammography group (P < .01). The addition of tomosynthesis reduced recall rates for all breast density and patient age groups, with significant differences (P < .05) found for scattered fibroglandular, heterogeneously dense, and extremely dense breasts and for patients younger than 40 years, those aged 40-49 years, those aged 50-59 years, and those aged 60-69 years. These findings persisted when multivariate logistic regression was used to control for differences in age, breast density, and elevated risk of breast cancer. The cancer detection rate was 5.7 per 1000 in patients receiving tomosynthesis versus 5.2 per 1000 in patients receiving conventional mammography alone (P = .70). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing tomosynthesis plus digital mammography had significantly lower screening recall rates. The greatest reductions were for those younger than 50 years and those with dense breasts. A nonsignificant 9.5% increase in cancer detection was observed in the tomosynthesis group.