Virtual Visiting Professorship Program as an Opportunity for Academic and Clinical Advancement Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of Participants.

OBJECTIVE: To identify structure, benefits, and shortcomings of a multi-institutional virtual visiting professorship (VVP) program from 2020 to 2022, 2 years after inception and after gradual resumption of an in-person, prepandemic academic environment. METHODS: An IRB-exempt, 70-question survey about structure, benefits, and shortcomings of the VVP program was distributed to its participants (14 breast imaging departments across the U.S.), using the snowball sampling technique. RESULTS: A total of 72 responses were received; 54.2% (32/59) radiologists >5 years of experience, 18.6% (11/59) radiologists <5 years of experience, 15.3% (9/59) residents, and 8.5% (5/59) fellows. Radiologists' attendance increased from 8% (5/59) to 53% (31/59) over 2 years, with 69% (41/59) of respondents supporting continued participation. The most important factors for attendance were expanding breast imaging knowledge (86.4% [51/59]) and the virtual format (76.2% [45/59]). The number of presented lectures increased from 1 to 3 lectures in 43.7% (7/16) of programs in year 1 and from 4 to 9 lectures in 50% (8/16) of programs in year 2. The greatest professional benefits were collaborations on publications for organizers (56.3% [9/16]) and building academic portfolios for presenters (50% [7/14]). For trainees, attending the program increased their knowledge (64.3% [9/14]) and enthusiasm for breast imaging (50% [7/14]). CONCLUSION: The VVP program facilitated scholarly collaboration among breast imaging radiologists, promoted academic portfolios for junior faculty, and increased enthusiasm for breast imaging for trainees. These accomplishments extended beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, as evidenced by the growth of the program after resumption of an in-person academic environment. Future expansion to other programs would benefit more practicing radiologists.

Breast Imaging and Intervention during Pregnancy and Lactation.

Physiologic changes that occur in the breast during pregnancy and lactation create challenges for breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Despite these challenges, imaging evaluation should not be deferred, because delayed diagnosis of pregnancy-associated breast cancer contributes to poor outcomes. Both screening and diagnostic imaging can be safely performed using protocols based on age, breast cancer risk, and whether the patient is pregnant or lactating. US is the preferred initial imaging modality for the evaluation of clinical symptoms in pregnant women, followed by mammography if the US findings are suspicious for malignancy or do not show the cause of the clinical symptom. Breast MRI is not recommended during pregnancy because of the use of intravenous gadolinium-based contrast agents. Diagnostic imaging for lactating women is the same as that for nonpregnant nonlactating individuals, beginning with US for patients younger than 30 years old and mammography followed by US for patients aged 30 years and older. MRI can be performed for high-risk screening and local-regional staging in lactating women. The radiologist may encounter a wide variety of breast abnormalities, some specific to pregnancy and lactation, including normal physiologic changes, benign disorders, and malignant neoplasms. Although most masses encountered are benign, biopsy should be performed if the imaging characteristics are suspicious for cancer or if the finding does not resolve after a short period of clinical follow-up. Knowledge of the expected imaging appearance of physiologic changes and common benign conditions of pregnancy and lactation is critical for differentiating these findings from pregnancy-associated breast cancer. ©RSNA, 2023 Online supplemental material is available for this article. Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.

Community-based Participatory Research: A Practical Guide for Radiologists.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is defined by the Kellogg Community Health Scholars Program as a collaborative process that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each community member brings. The CBPR process begins with a research topic of importance to the community, with the goal of combining knowledge and action with social change to improve community health and eliminate health disparities. CBPR engages and empowers affected communities to collaborate in defining the research question; sharing the study design process; collecting, analyzing, and disseminating the data; and implementing solutions. A CBPR approach in radiology has several potential applications, including removing limitations to high-quality imaging, improving secondary prevention, identifying barriers to technology access, and increasing diversity in the research participation for clinical trials. The authors provide an overview with the definitions of CBPR, explain how to conduct CBPR, and illustrate its applications in radiology. Finally, the challenges of CBPR and useful resources are discussed in detail. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Utilization and Cancer Yield of Probably Benign Assessment Category in the National Mammography Database: 2009 to 2018.

PURPOSE: Data on utilization rate and cancer yield of BI-RADS® category 3 in routine clinical practice in diagnostic mammography are sparse. The aim of this study was to determine utilization rate and cancer yield of BI-RADS 3 in diagnostic mammography in the ACR National Mammography Database (NMD). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of NMD mammograms from January 1, 2009, to June 30, 2018, was performed. BI-RADS 3 utilization rate in diagnostic setting was calculated and stratified by patient, facility, and examination-level variables. Patient-level cancer yield was calculated among women with BI-RADS 3 assessment and adequate follow-up (imaging follow-up ≥24 months or biopsy). Logistic regression was performed to assess the odds of utilization of BI-RADS 3, with respect to facility, examination, and patient variables, and the odds of malignancy among patients with probably benign findings. Chi-square and t tests were used to determine significance (P < .05). RESULTS: Data from 19,443,866 mammograms from 500 NMD facilities across 31 states were analyzed, of which 3,039,952 were diagnostic mammograms. Utilization rate of BI-RADS 3 was 15.5% (470,155 of 3,039,952) in the diagnostic setting. There was a statistically significant difference in BI-RADS 3 utilization rate across all collected variables (P < .001). Patient-level cancer yield at 2-year follow-up was 0.91% (2,009 of 220,672; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87%-0.95%) in the diagnostic setting. Patient and examination variables associated with significantly higher likelihood of malignancy included calcifications (odds ratio, 4.27; 95% CI, 2.43-7.51), patient age > 70 years (odds ratio, 3.77; 95% CI, 2.49-5.7), and presence of prior comparisons (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: In the NMD, BI-RADS 3 assessment was common in diagnostic mammography (15.5%), with an overall cancer yield of 0.91%, less than the benchmark of 2%. Utilization trends in diagnostic mammography warrant further research for optimization of use.

Addressing the challenge of assessing physician-level screening performance: mammography as an example.

BACKGROUND: Motivated by the challenges in assessing physician-level cancer screening performance and the negative impact of misclassification, we propose a method (using mammography as an example) that enables confident assertion of adequate or inadequate performance or alternatively recognizes when more data is required. METHODS: Using established metrics for mammography screening performance-cancer detection rate (CDR) and recall rate (RR)-and observed benchmarks from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), we calculate the minimum volume required to be 95% confident that a physician is performing at or above benchmark thresholds. We graphically display the minimum observed CDR and RR values required to confidently assert adequate performance over a range of interpretive volumes. We use a prospectively collected database of consecutive mammograms from a clinical screening program outside the BCSC to illustrate how this method classifies individual physician performance as volume accrues. RESULTS: Our analysis reveals that an annual interpretive volume of 2770 screening mammograms, above the United States' (US) mandatory (480) and average (1777) annual volumes but below England's mandatory (5000) annual volume is necessary to confidently assert that a physician performed adequately. In our analyzed US practice, a single year of data uniformly allowed confident assertion of adequate performance in terms of RR but not CDR, which required aggregation of data across more than one year. CONCLUSION: For individual physician quality assessment in cancer screening programs that target low incidence populations, considering imprecision in observed performance metrics due to small numbers of patients with cancer is important.