The Incidental Pancreatic Cyst: When to Worry About Cancer.

Incidental pancreatic cystic lesions are a common challenge encountered by diagnostic radiologists. Specifically, given the prevalence of benign pancreatic cystic lesions, determining when to recommend aggressive actions such as surgical resection or endoscopic ultrasound with sampling is difficult. In this article, we review the common types of cystic pancreatic lesions including serous cystadenoma, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, and mucinous cystic neoplasm with imaging examples of each. We also discuss high-risk or worrisome imaging features that warrant a referral to a surgeon or endoscopist and provid several examples of these features. These imaging features adhere to the latest guidelines from the International Consensus Guidelines, American Gastroenterological Association (2015), American College of Gastroenterology (2018), American College of Radiology (2010, 2017), and European Guidelines (2013, 2018). Our focused article addresses the imaging dilemma of managing incidental cystic pancreatic lesions, weighing the options between imaging follow-up and aggressive interventions.

Optimization of non-endorectal prostate MR image quality using PI-QUAL: A multidisciplinary team approach.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of the PI-QUAL score in assessing protocol changes aimed to improve image quality from a non-endorectal coil prostate MR imaging protocol during a 9-month quality improvement (QI) project and to quantify the inter-reader agreement of PI-QUAL scores between radiologists, technologists, and physicists. METHODS: This retrospective study audited 1,012 multiparametric prostate MRI examinations as part of a national QI project according to the PI-QUAL standard. PI-QUAL scores were used to inform MR protocol changes. Following the project, 4 radiologists, 2 technologists, and 1 medical physicist collectively audited an additional set of 150 examinations to identify statistical improvements in image quality using the two-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test. The improvements due to individual protocol changes were assessed among subsets of the 1,012 examinations which compared examinations occurring before and after the isolated protocol change. Inter-reader variability was assessed using the percent majority agreement and the average standard deviation of PI-QUAL scores between evaluators. RESULTS: During this QI project, PI-QUAL scores improved from 3.67 ± 0.75 to 4.16 ± 0.59 (p < 0.01) after implementing a series of protocol changes. Among a subset of 451 cases, we found that adopting R/L rather than A/P phase encoding reduced distortion in diffusion-weighted imaging (DW) from 21.6% (41/190 A/P phase encoded cases) to 11.5% (30/261 R/L phase encoded cases) (p < 0.01). Similarly, in the same 451 cases, adopting R/L phase encoding in T2WI reduced breathing motion artifacts from 34.6% (94/272 A/P phase encoding cases) to 12.8% (23/179 R/L phase encoding cases) (p < 0.01). DWI wraparound artifact was mitigated by employing a full-pelvis shim and enabling the abdomen shim option. The occurrence of low signal-to-noise ratio was reduced from 19.4% (19/98 cases without a weight-based threshold) to 6.3% (10/160) by instituting a weight-based threshold for using an endorectal coil (p < 0.01). The percent majority agreement was similar between radiologists, technologists and physicists, and all evaluators combined (72%, 77%, and 67%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PI-QUAL can evaluate image quality changes resulting from protocol optimizations at both the exam- and series-levels. With training, radiologists, technologists, and physicists can perform PI-QUAL scoring with similar performance. Broadening the scope of the quality improvement team can result in meaningful and lasting change.

High-fidelity simulation training improves resident knowledge of contrast reaction management, especially for junior residents.

Rationale and objectives: Contrast reactions are rare but serious events, frequently managed independently by Radiology Residents, who are likely underprepared to lead the acute event response. At our tertiary care center, Radiology Residents are the first responders to contrast reaction scenarios, and previously had didactic only training. We sought to create a High-Fidelity Simulation Training, and to assess whether this improved resident knowledge in managing contrast reactions. Materials and methods: In September of 2020, we administered a didactic only contrast reaction training to 20 residents, with an anonymous 20 question multiple choice pre- and post-test. In January of 2022, we administered a 4-hour, 4-station contrast reaction High-Fidelity Simulation Training to 22 residents, with the same 20 question multiple choice pre- and post-test. Results: The average number of residents answering each question correctly did not significantly improve following the didactic only training (p = 0.116). Following high-fidelity simulation training, however, there was a significant improvement by a mean of 2.45 (p = 0.028), as well as a mean improvement in individual scores of 10.45% (p = 0.0001). Comparing junior and senior residents, there was a significant difference in pre-test scores, with senior residents scoring on average 9.67% better (p = 0.0364); however on post-test scores, there was no significant difference. Conclusion: High-fidelity simulation training improves resident knowledge of contrast reaction management, and allows inexperienced junior residents to attain senior resident level proficiency in these high-stress scenarios.