ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Pretreatment Evaluation and Follow-Up of Invasive Cancer of the Cervix: 2023 Update.

Cervical cancer is a common gynecological malignancy worldwide. Cervical cancer is staged based on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) classification system, which was revised in 2018 to incorporate radiologic and pathologic data. Imaging plays an important role in pretreatment assessment including initial staging and treatment response assessment of cervical cancer. Accurate determination of tumor size, local extension, and nodal and distant metastases is important for treatment selection and for prognostication. Although local recurrence can be diagnosed by physical examination, imaging plays a critical role in detection and follow-up of local and distant recurrence and subsequent treatment selection. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Pretreatment evaluation and follow-up of invasive cancer of the cervix: 2023 update

Cervical cancer is a common gynecological malignancy worldwide. Cervical cancer is staged based on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) classification system, which was revised in 2018 to incorporate radiologic and pathologic data. Imaging plays an important role in pretreatment assessment including initial staging and treatment response assessment of cervical cancer. Accurate determination of tumor size, local extension, and nodal and distant metastases is important for treatment selection and for prognostication. Although local recurrence can be diagnosed by physical examination, imaging plays a critical role in detection and follow-up of local and distant recurrence and subsequent treatment selection. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

MRI, clinical, and radiomic models for differentiation of uterine leiomyosarcoma and leiomyoma.

PURPOSE: To assess the predictive ability of conventional MRI features and MRI texture features in differentiating uterine leiomyoma (LM) from uterine leiomyosarcoma (LMS). METHODS: This single-center, IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study included 108 patients (69 LM, 39 LMS) who had pathology, preoperative MRI, and clinical data available at our tertiary academic institution. Two radiologists independently evaluated 14 features on preoperative MRI. Texture features based on 3D segmentation were extracted from T2W-weighted MRI (T2WI) using commercially available texture software (TexRAD™, Feedback Medical Ltd., Great Britain). MRI conventional features, and clinical and MRI texture features were compared between LM and LMS groups. Dataset was randomly divided into training (86 cases) and testing (22 cases) cohorts (8:2 ratio); training cohort was further subdivided into training and validation sets using ten-fold cross-validation. Optimal radiomics model was selected out of 90 different machine learning pipelines and five models containing different combinations of MRI, clinical, and radiomics variables. RESULTS: 12/14 MRI conventional features and 2/2 clinical features were significantly different between LM and LMS groups. MRI conventional features had moderate to excellent inter-reader agreement for all but two features. Models combining MRI conventional and clinical features (AUC 0.956) and MRI conventional, clinical, and radiomics features (AUC 0.989) had better performance compared to models containing MRI conventional features alone (AUC 0.846 and 0.890) or radiomics features alone (0.929). CONCLUSION: While multiple MRI and clinical features differed between LM and LMS groups, the model combining MRI, clinical, and radiomic features had the best predictive ability but was only marginally better than a model utilizing conventional MRI and clinical data alone.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical, and Biopsy Findings in Suspected Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Multiple strategies integrating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical data have been proposed to determine the need for a prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (Gleason score ≥3 + 4). However, inconsistencies across different strategies create challenges for drawing a definitive conclusion. Objective: To determine the optimal prostate biopsy decision-making strategy for avoiding unnecessary biopsies and minimizing the risk of missing csPCa by combining MRI Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) and clinical data. Data Sources: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 1, 2022. Study Selection: English-language studies that evaluated men with suspected but not confirmed csPCa who underwent MRI PI-RADS followed by prostate biopsy were included. Each study had proposed a biopsy plan by combining PI-RADS and clinical data. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Studies were independently assessed for eligibility for inclusion. Quality of studies was appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Mixed-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression models with multimodel inference were performed. Reporting of this study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Independent risk factors of csPCa were determined by performing meta-regression between the rate of csPCa and PI-RADS and clinical parameters. Yields of different biopsy strategies were assessed by performing diagnostic meta-analysis. Results: The analyses included 72 studies comprising 36 366 patients. Univariable meta-regression showed that PI-RADS 4 (ß-coefficient [SE], 7.82 [3.85]; P = .045) and PI-RADS 5 (ß-coefficient [SE], 23.18 [4.46]; P < .001) lesions, but not PI-RADS 3 lesions (ß-coefficient [SE], -4.08 [3.06]; P = .19), were significantly associated with a higher risk of csPCa. When considered jointly in a multivariable model, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) was the only clinical variable significantly associated with csPCa (ß-coefficient [SE], 15.50 [5.14]; P < .001) besides PI-RADS 5 (ß-coefficient [SE], 9.19 [3.33]; P < .001). Avoiding biopsy in patients with lesions with PI-RADS category of 3 or less and PSAD less than 0.10 (vs <0.15) ng/mL2 resulted in reducing 30% (vs 48%) of unnecessary biopsies (compared with performing biopsy in all suspected patients), with an estimated sensitivity of 97% (vs 95%) and number needed to harm of 17 (vs 15). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that in patients with suspected csPCa, patient-tailored prostate biopsy decisions based on PI-RADS and PSAD could prevent unnecessary procedures while maintaining high sensitivity.

Practical Tips for Reporting Adnexal Lesions Using O-RADS MRI.

The Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) MRI risk stratification system provides a standardized lexicon and evidence-based risk score for evaluation of adnexal lesions. The goals of the lexicon and risk score are to improve report quality and communication between radiologists and clinicians, reduce variability in the reporting language, and optimize management of adnexal lesions. The O-RADS MRI risk score is based on the presence or absence of specific imaging features, including the lipid content, enhancing solid tissue, number of loculi, and fluid type. The probability of malignancy ranges from less than 0.5% when there are benign features to approximately 90% when there is solid tissue with a high-risk time-intensity curve. This information can aid in optimizing management of patients with adnexal lesions. The authors present an algorithmic approach to the O-RADS MRI risk stratification system and highlight key teaching points and common pitfalls. © RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

MRI-Targeted, Systematic, or Combined Biopsy for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess MRI-targeted, systematic, or combined prostate biopsy for diagnosing prostate cancer to identify opportunities for diagnostic accuracy improvement. METHODS: This institutional review board-approved, retrospective study, performed at a large, quaternary hospital, included all men undergoing prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019, with prostate-specific antigen ≥ 4 ng/mL, biopsy target on mpMRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] 3-5 lesion), and combined targeted and systematic biopsy ≤6 months after MRI. Analysis included the highest grade lesion per patient. The primary outcome was prostate cancer diagnosis by grade group (GG; 1, 2, and ≥3). Secondary outcomes were rates of cancer upgrading by biopsy type and cancer proximity to the targeted biopsy site in patients upgraded by systematic biopsy. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-seven biopsies (267 patients) were included; 94.4% (252 of 267) were biopsy naive. The most suspicious mpMRI lesion was PI-RADS 3 in 18.7% (50 of 267), PI-RADS 4 in 52.4% (140 of 267), and PI-RADS 5 in 28.8% (77 of 267). Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 68.5% (183 of 267): 22.1% (59 of 267) GG 1, 16.1% (43 of 267) GG 2, and 30.3% (81 of 267) GG ≥ 3. Combined biopsy (124 of 267) yielded more GG ≥ 2 prostate cancer diagnoses than systematic (87 of 267) or targeted (110 of 267) biopsy alone. More GG ≥ 2 cancers were upgraded by targeted biopsy than by systematic biopsy (P = .0062). Systematic biopsy upgrades were in close proximity to the targeted biopsy site in 42.1% (24 of 57); GG ≥ 3 cancers 62.5% (15 of 24) constituted most proximal misses. CONCLUSIONS: In men with prostate-specific antigen ≥ 4 ng/mL and PI-RADS 3, 4, or 5 lesion on mpMRI, combined biopsy led to more prostate cancer diagnoses than targeted or systematic biopsy alone. Cancers upgraded by systematic biopsy proximal and distant from the targeted biopsy site may indicate opportunities for biopsy and mpMRI improvement, respectively.

Comparing thoracic and abdominal subspecialists' follow-up recommendations for abdominal findings identified on chest CT.

PURPOSE: To compare thoracic and abdominal radiologists' follow-up recommendations for abdominal findings identified on chest CT. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-exempt, retrospective study was performed at a large academic medical center with subspecialty radiology divisions. We used a combination of natural language processing and manual reviews to identify chest CT reports with and without abdominal findings that were interpreted by thoracic radiologists in 2019. Three random samples of reports were reviewed by two subspecialty trained abdominal radiologists for their agreement with thoracic radiologists' reporting: abdominal findings with follow-up recommendation (Group 1), abdominal findings without follow-up recommendation (Group 2), and no abdominal findings reported (Group 3). Primary outcome was agreement between thoracic and abdominal radiologists for the need for follow-up of abdominal findings. Secondary outcomes were agreement between subspecialists for the presence of abdominal findings and referring clinician adherence to recommendations. Fischer's exact test was used to compare proportions. RESULTS: Abdominal radiologists agreed with need for follow-up in 48.5% (16/33) of Group 1 cases and agreed follow-up was not necessary for 100% (34/34) of Group 2 cases (p < 0.001). Abdominal radiologists identified abdominal findings in 31.4% (11/35) of Group 3 cases, none of which required follow-up. Referring clinician adherence to thoracic radiologist follow-up recommendations for abdominal findings was 13/33 (39.4%). CONCLUSION: Abdominal radiologists frequently disagreed with thoracic radiologist recommendations for follow-up of abdominal findings on chest CT. Chest radiologists may consider abdominal subspecialty consultation or clinical decision support to reduce unnecessary imaging.

Radiologists' Contribution to Variation in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Men With Prostate MRI.

OBJECTIVE: Assess radiologists' contribution to variation in clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). METHODS: This institutional review board-approved, retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary, academic, National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center with a multidisciplinary prostate cancer program. Men undergoing mpMRI examinations from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019, with elevated PSA (≥4 ng/mL) and biopsy within 6 months pre- or post-MRI or prostatectomy within 6 months post-mpMRI were included. Univariate and multivariable hierarchical logistic regression assessed impact of patient, provider, mpMRI examination, mpMRI report, and pathology factors on the diagnosis of Grade Group ≥ 2 csPCa. RESULTS: Study cohort included 960 MRIs in 928 men, mean age 64.0 years (SD ± 7.4), and 59.8% (555 of 928) had csPCa. Interpreting radiologist was not significant individually (P > .999) or combined with mpMRI ordering physician and physician performing biopsy or prostatectomy (P = .41). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 2 (odds ratio [OR] 0.18, P = .04), PI-RADS category 4 (OR 2.52, P < .001), and PI-RADS category 5 (OR 4.99, P < .001) assessment compared with no focal lesion; PSA density of 0.1 to 0.15 ng/mL/cc (OR 2.46, P < .001), 0.15 to 0.2 ng/mL/cc (OR 2.77, P < .001), or ≥0.2 ng/mL/cc (OR 4.52, P < .001); private insurance (reference = Medicare, OR 0.52, P = .001), and unambiguous extraprostatic extension on mpMRI (OR 2.94, P = .01) were independently associated with csPCa. PI-RADS 3 assessment (OR 1.18, P = .56), age (OR 0.99, P = .39), and African American race (OR 0.90, P = .75) were not. DISCUSSION: Although there is known in-practice variation in radiologists' interpretation of mpMRI, in our multidisciplinary prostate cancer program we found no significant radiologist-attributable variation in csPCa detection.

Assessment of a Large-Scale Peer Learning Program's Value by Manual Review of Case Submissions.

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies used submission numbers or report addendum rates to measure peer learning programs' (PLP) impact. We assessed the educational value of a PLP by manually reviewing cases submitted to identify factors correlating with meaningful learning opportunities (MLOs). METHODS: This institutional review board-exempted, retrospective study was performed in a large academic radiology department generating >800,000 reports annually. A PLP facilitating radiologist-to-radiologist feedback was implemented May 1, 2017, with subsequent pay-for-performance initiatives encouraging increasing submissions, >18,000 by 2019. Two radiologists blinded to submitter and receiver identity categorized 336 randomly selected submissions as a MLO, not meaningful, or equivocal, resolving disagreements in consensus review. Primary outcome was proportion of MLOs. Secondary outcomes included percent engagement by subspecialty clinical division and comparing MLO and report addendum rates via Fisher's exact tests. We assessed association between peer learning category, pay-for-performance interventions, and subspecialty division with MLOs using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 336 PLP submissions, 65.2% (219 of 336) were categorized as meaningful, 27.4% (92 of 336) not meaningful, and 7.4% (25 of 336) equivocal, with substantial reviewer agreement (86.0% [289 of 336], κ = 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.78). MLO rate (65.2% [219 of 336]) was five times higher than addendum rate (12.9% [43 of 333]) for the cohort. MLO proportion (adjusted odds ratios 0.05-1.09) and percent engagement (0.5%-3.6%) varied between subspecialty divisions, some submitting significantly fewer MLOs (P < .01). MLO proportion did not vary between peer learning categories. CONCLUSION: Educational value of a large-scale PLP, estimated through manual review of case submissions, is likely a more accurate measure of program impact. Incentives to enhance PLP use did not diminish the program's educational value.

Adoption of a diagnostic certainty scale in abdominal imaging: 2-year experience at an academic institution.

PURPOSE: Assess use of a diagnostic certainty scale (CS) for abdominal imaging reports and identify factors associated with greater adoption. METHODS: This retrospective, Institutional Review Board-exempt study was conducted at an academic health system. Abdominal radiology reports containing diagnostic certainty phrases (DCPs) generated 4/1/2019-3/31/2021 were identified by a natural language processing tool. Reports containing DCPs were subdivided into those with/without a CS inserted at the end. Primary outcome was monthly CS use rate in reports containing DCPs. Secondary outcomes were assessment of factors associated with CS use, and usage of recommended DCPs over time. Chi-square test was used to compare proportions; univariable and multivariable regression assessed impact of other variables. RESULTS: DCPs were used in 81,281/124,501 reports (65.3%). One-month post-implementation, 82/2310 (3.6%) of reports with DCPs contained the CS, increasing to 1862/4644 (40.1%) by study completion (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated reports containing recommended DCPs were more likely to have the CS (Odds Ratio [OR] 4.5; p < 0.001). Using CT as a reference, CS use was lower for ultrasound (OR 0.73; p < 0.001) and X-ray (OR 0.38; p < 0.001). There was substantial inter-radiologist variation in CS use (OR 0.01-26.3, multiple p values). CONCLUSION: DCPs are very common in abdominal imaging reports and can be further clarified with CS use. Although voluntary CS adoption increased 13-fold over 2 years, > 50% of reports with DCPs lacked the CS at study's end. More stringent interventions, including embedding the scale in report templates, are likely needed to reduce inter-radiologist variation and decrease ambiguity in conveying diagnostic certainty to referring providers and patients.

Use of a PACS Embedded System for Communicating Radiologist to Technologist Learning Opportunities and Patient Callbacks.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine effect of modality, care setting, and radiology subspecialty on frequency of diagnostic image quality issues identified by radiologists during image interpretation. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-exempt retrospective study was performed 10/1/18-6/30/20 at an academic radiology practice performing 700,000+ examinations annually. A closed-loop communication tool integrated in PACS workflow enabled radiologists to alert technologists to image quality issues. Radiologists categorized communications as requiring patient callback, or as technologist learning opportunities if image quality was adequate to generate a diagnostic report. Fisher's exact test assessed impact of imaging modality, radiology subspecialty, and care setting on radiologist-identified image quality issues. RESULTS: 976,915 imaging examinations were performed during the study period. Radiologists generated 1,935 technologist learning opportunities (0.20%) and 208 callbacks (0.02%). Learning opportunity rates were highest for MRI (0.60%) when compared to CT (0.26%) and radiography (0.08%) (p<0.0001). The same was true for patient callbacks (MRI 0.13%, CT 0.02%, radiography 0.0006%; p<0.0001). Outpatient examinations generated more learning opportunities (1479/637,092; 0.23%) vs. inpatient (305/200,206; 0.15%) and Emergency Department (151/139,617; 0.11%) (p<0.0001). Abdominal subspecialists were most likely to generate learning opportunities when compared to other subspecialists and cardiovascular imagers were most likely to call a patient back. CONCLUSIONS: Image quality issues identified by radiologists during the interpretation process were rare and 10 times more commonly categorized as learning opportunities not interfering with a clinically adequate report than as requiring patient callback. Further work is necessary to determine if creating learning opportunities leads to fewer patients requiring repeat examinations.

Predictors of malignancy in incidental adnexal lesions identified on CT in patients with prior non-ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To identify imaging features in incidental adnexal lesions which are associated with malignancy on portal venous phase contrast-enhanced CT in patients with known non-ovarian cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study was performed at a tertiary cancer center. Portal venous phase contrast-enhanced CT from January 2010 to December 2015 was reviewed to identify women with non-ovarian malignancy and incidental adnexal lesion, with mean 18 months (range 1-80 months) to definitive diagnosis or last imaging follow-up. Imaging features of adnexal lesions were recorded (size, laterality, shape, attenuation, and composition) and correlated with outcome (benign or malignant) using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. A point-based system was used to predict likelihood of malignancy. RESULTS: Of 276 women (mean age 45 years), 216 (78.3%) had benign lesions, 58 (21.0%) ovarian metastasis, and 2 (0.7%) had primary ovarian malignancy. On logistic regression model, lesion size > 5 cm (p-value, OR, 95% CI 0.01, 9.11, 1.70-48.87), bilaterality (< 0.0001, 28.34, 7.46-107.67), irregular shape (0.01, 12.31, 1.61-94.05), higher-than-simple-fluid attenuation (< 0.0001, 28.27, 5.65-141.59), and heterogeneous composition (0.0017, 10.75, 2.45-47.23) were associated with malignant outcome (AUC 0.97). A point-based system incorporating these five features (possible 0-5 points) had AUC of 0.97. Rate of malignancy was 0% (0/147) if none of the features of malignancy were present, 12.7% (8/63) if one feature was present, 51.7% (15/29) if two features were present, and 100% (37/37) if three or more features present. CONCLUSION: Risk of malignancy of incidental adnexal lesions in women with prior non-ovarian cancer can be estimated based on lesion features seen on portal venous phase contrast-enhanced CT.

Peer Learning in Radiology: Effect of a Pay-for-Performance Initiative on Clinical Impact and Usage.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to assess the effects of a pay-for-performance (PFP) initiative on clinical impact and usage of a radiology peer learning tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective study was performed at a large academic hospital. On May 1, 2017, a peer learning tool was implemented to facilitate radiologist peer feedback including clinical follow-up, positive feedback, and consultation. Subsequently, PFP target numbers for peer learning tool alerts by subspecialty divisions (October 1, 2017) and individual radiologists (October 1, 2018) were set. The primary outcome was report addendum rate (percent of clinical follow-up alerts with addenda), which was a proxy for peer learning tool clinical impact. Secondary outcomes were peer learning tool usage rate (number of peer learning tool alerts per 1000 radiology reports) and proportion of clinical follow-up alerts (percent of clinical follow-ups among all peer learning tool alerts). Outcomes were assessed biweekly using ANOVA and statistical process control analyses. RESULTS. Among 1,265,839 radiology reports from May 1, 2017, to September 29, 2019, a total of 20,902 peer learning tool alerts were generated. The clinical follow-up alert addendum rate was not significantly different between the period before the PFP initiative (9.9%) and the periods including division-wide (8.3%) and individual (7.9%) PFP initiatives (p = .55; ANOVA). Peer learning tool usage increased from 2.2 alerts per 1000 reports before the PFP initiative to 12.6 per 1000 during the division-wide PFP period (5.7-fold increase; 12.6/2.2), to 25.2 in the individual PFP period (11.5-fold increase vs before PFP; twofold increase vs division-wide) (p < .001). The clinical follow-up alert proportion decreased from 37.5% before the PFP initiative, to 34.4% in the division-wide period, to 31.3% in the individual PFP period. CONCLUSION. A PFP initiative improved radiologist engagement in peer learning by marked increase in peer learning tool usage rate without a change in report addendum rate as a proxy for clinical impact.

Radiology Patient Outcome Measures: Impact of a Departmental Pay-for-Performance Initiative on Key Quality and Safety Measures.

OBJECTIVE: Assess impact of a multifaceted pay-for-performance (PFP) initiative on radiologists' behavior regarding key quality and safety measures. METHODS: This institutional review board-approved prospective study was performed at a large, 12-division urban academic radiology department. Radiology patient outcome measures were implemented October 1, 2017, measuring report signature timeliness, critical results communication, and generation of peer-learning communications between radiologists. Subspecialty division-wide and individual radiologist targets were specified, performance was transparently communicated on an intranet dashboard updated daily, and performance was financially incentivized (5% of salary) quarterly. We compared outcomes 12 months pre- versus 12 months post-PFP implementation. Primary outcome was monthly 90th percentile time from scan completion to final report signature (CtoF). Secondary outcomes were percentage timely closed-loop communication of critical results and number of division-wide peer-learning communications. Statistical process control analysis and parallel coordinates charts were used to assess for temporal trends. RESULTS: In all, 144 radiologists generated 1,255,771 reports (613,273 pre-PFP) during the study period. Monthly 90th percentile CtoF exhibited an absolute decrease of 4.4 hours (from 21.1 to 16.7 hours) and a 20.9% relative decrease post-PFP. Statistical process control analysis demonstrated significant decreases in 90th percentile CtoF post-PFP, sustained throughout the study period (P < .003). Between 95% (119 of 125, July 1, 2018, to September 30, 2018) and 98.4% (126 of 128, October 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017) of radiologists achieved >90% timely closure of critical alerts; all divisions exceeded the target of 90 peer-learning communications each quarter (range: 97-472) after January 1, 2018. DISCUSSION: Implementation of a multifaceted PFP initiative using well-defined radiology patient outcome measures correlated with measurable improvements in radiologist behavior regarding key quality and safety parameters.

Diagnosis, Management, and Percutaneous Sampling of Nipple-Areolar Calcifications: How Radiologists Can Help Patients Avoid the Operating Room.

OBJECTIVE: Both benign and malignant causes of calcifications in the nipple-areolar complex exist. BI-RADS terminology applies to the description and classification of nipple-areolar calcifications in the same way it does to calcifications elsewhere in the breast. Minimally invasive sampling can be performed safely and accurately with ultrasound-guided techniques, with a few technical modifications. CONCLUSION: This article provides insight regarding the management algorithm and image-guided interventional techniques for sampling nipple-areolar calcifications as an essential competency for breast imaging practices.

Frequency and Cancer Yield of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions Detected at High-Risk Screening Breast MRI.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency and cancer yield of BI-RADS category 3 lesions in baseline versus nonbaseline (those with at least one prior) MRI screening examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Consecutive MRI screening examinations performed from 2011 through 2015 were reviewed. Pearson and Wilcoxon tests were used to examine differences in age, breast density, screening indication, background parenchymal enhancement, and cancer yield between baseline and nonbaseline MRI BI-RADS category 3 assessments. Multivariate logistic regression models based on generalized estimating equations were used to assess the odds of receiving a BI-RADS 3 assessment as a function of the variables. RESULTS. Of 6672 MRI screening examinations of 3214 patients, 202 examinations (3%) were assessed BI-RADS category 3. Among baseline examinations, 8% (82/983) were assessed BI-RADS 3, compared with 2% (120/5689) of nonbaseline examinations (p < 0.001). Among the total BI-RADS 3 examinations, 6% (13/202) yielded malignancy of the lesion that had been assessed BI-RADS 3; 12 of 13 cancers were stage 0 or I at diagnosis. The cancer yield of BI-RADS 3 at baseline examinations was 2% (2/82), compared with 9% (11/120) for nonbaseline examinations (p = 0.056). Ten of 13 examinations were upgraded at or before 6-month follow-up MRI. CONCLUSION. Baseline screening breast MRI examinations are associated with a significantly higher rate of BI-RADS category 3 assessments than are nonbaseline examinations. Most cancers diagnosed at follow-up of BI-RADS 3 lesions are in an early stage and are diagnosed at or before the 6-month follow-up examination. When used judiciously, short-interval follow-up MRI is an appropriate method for identifying early-stage breast cancer while avoiding unnecessary biopsies with benign findings.

Impact of Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Diagnostic Performance in Screening Breast MRI.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on diagnostic performance in screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive screening breast MRIs performed at our institution from 2011 to 2014 were reviewed in a HIPAA-compliant manner with institutional review board approval. BPE was extracted from radiology reports and examinations grouped into minimal/mild (lower) or moderate/marked (higher) BPE. Performance measures were compared between the two groups with Pearson's χ2 test and with logistic regression to adjust for possible confounders of age, screening indication, mammographic density, available prior MRI, and examination year, using lower BPE as the reference group. RESULTS: For 4686 screening MRIs performed in 2446 women, BPE was reported as minimal or mild for 3975 (85%) examinations and moderate or marked for 711(15%). Following logistic regression to adjust for multiple confounders, abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) significantly differed between the two BPE groups. AIR was 13% (89/711) in the higher BPE group versus 7% (295/3975) in the lower BPE group with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.37 (95% confidence interval: 1.03, 1.82). After adjustment, all other performance metrics, including cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity did not significantly differ between the two BPE groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Higher BPE on screening MRI is associated with higher abnormal interpretation rate, with no impact on cancer detection rate, sensitivity, or specificity.

The Effect of Prior Comparison MRI on Interpretive Performance of Screening Breast MRI.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of prior comparison MRI on interpretive performance of screening breast MRI. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, all screening breast MRI examinations performed from January 2011 through December 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Screening performance metrics were estimated and compared for exams with and without a prior comparison MRI, using logistic regression models to adjust for age and screening indication (BRCA mutation or thoracic radiation versus breast cancer history versus high-risk lesion history versus breast cancer family history). RESULTS: Most exams, 4509 (87%), had a prior comparison MRI (incidence round), while 661 (13%) did not (prevalence round). Abnormal interpretation rate (6% vs 20%, P < 0.01), biopsy rate (3% vs 9%, P < 0.01), and false-positive biopsy recommendation rate per 1000 exams (21 vs 71, P < 0.01) were significantly lower in the incidence rounds compared to the prevalence rounds, while specificity was significantly higher (95% vs 81%, P < 0.01). There was no difference in cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 exams (12 vs 20, P = 0.1), positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3) (35% vs 23%, P = 0.1), or sensitivity (86% vs 76%, P = 0.4). CONCLUSION: Presence of a prior comparison significantly improves incidence round screening breast MRI examination performance compared with prevalence round screening. Consideration should be given to updating the BI-RADS breast MRI screening benchmarks and auditing prevalence and incidence round examinations separately.

Performance of Screening Breast MRI across Women with Different Elevated Breast Cancer Risk Indications.

Background Screening breast MRI is recommended for women with BRCA mutation or a history of chest radiation, but guidelines are equivocal for MRI screening of women with a personal history of breast cancer or high-risk lesion. Purpose To evaluate screening breast MRI performance across women with different elevated breast cancer risk indications. Materials and Methods All screening breast MRI examinations performed between 2011 and 2014 underwent retrospective medical record review. Indications for screening were as follows: BRCA mutation carrier or history of chest radiation (BRCA/RT group), family history of breast cancer (FH group), personal history of breast cancer (PH group), and history of high-risk lesion (HRL group). Screening performance metrics were calculated and compared among indications by using logistic regression adjusted for age, available prior MRI, mammographic density, examination year, and multiple risk factors. Results There were 5170 screening examinations in 2637 women (mean age, 52 years; range, 23-86 years); 67 breast cancers were detected. The cancer detection rate (CDR) was highest in the BRCA/RT group (26 per 1000 examinations; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16, 43 per 1000 examinations), intermediate for those in the PH and HRL groups (12 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: 9, 17 per 1000 examinations] and 15 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: 7, 32 per 1000 examinations], respectively), and lowest for those in the FH group (8 per 1000 examinations; 95% CI: 4, 14 per 1000 examinations). No difference in CDR was evident for the PH or HRL group compared with the BRCA/RT group (P = .14 and .18, respectively). The CDR was lower for the FH group compared with the BRCA/RT group (P = .02). No difference was evident in positive predictive value for biopsies performed (PPV3) for the BRCA/RT group (41%; 95% CI: 26%, 56%) compared with the PH (41%; 95% CI: 31%, 52%; P = .63) or HRL (36%, 95% CI: 17%, 60%; P = .37) groups. PPV3 was lower for the FH group (14%; 95% CI: 8%, 25%; P = .048). Conclusion Screening breast MRI should be considered for women with a personal history of breast cancer or high-risk lesion. Worse screening MRI performance in patients with a family history of breast cancer suggests that better risk assessment strategies may benefit these women. © RSNA, 2019.