Reading Times of Common Musculoskeletal MRI Examinations: A Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The workload of musculoskeletal radiologists has come under pressure. Our objective was to estimate the reading times of common musculoskeletal MRI examinations. METHODS: A total of 144 radiologists were asked to estimate reading times (including interpretation and reporting) for MRI of the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle. Multivariate linear regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Reported median reading times with interquartile range (IQR) for the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle were 10 (IQR 6-14), 10 (IQR 6-14), 11 (IQR 7.5-14.5), 10 (IQR 6.6-13.4), 8 (IQR 4.6-11.4), and 10 (IQR 6.5-13.5) min, respectively. Radiologists aged 35-44 years reported shorter reading times for the shoulder (ß coefficient [ß] = B-3.412, p = 0.041), hip (ß = -3.596, p = 0.023), and knee (ß = -3.541, p = 0.013) than radiologists aged 45-54 years. Radiologists not working in an academic/teaching hospital reported shorter reading times for the hip (ß = -3.611, p = 0.025) and knee (ß = -3.038, p = 0.035). Female radiologists indicated longer reading times for all joints (ß of 2.592 to 5.186, p ≤ 0.034). Radiologists without musculoskeletal fellowship training indicated longer reading times for the shoulder (ß = 4.604, p = 0.005), elbow (ß = 3.989, p = 0.038), wrist (ß = 4.543, p = 0.014), and hip (ß = 2.380, p = 0.119). Radiologists with <5 years of post-residency experience indicated longer reading times for all joints (ß of 5.355 to 6.984, p ≤ 0.045), and radiologists with 5-10 years of post-residency experience reported longer reading time for the knee (ß = 3.660, p = 0.045) than those with >10 years of post-residency experience. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation among radiologists in reported reading times for common musculoskeletal MRI examinations. Several radiologist-related determinants appear to be associated with reading speed, including age, gender, hospital type, training, and experience.

Radiation protection adherence and associated factors among radiology personnel.

The aim of the study was to investigate radiation protection adherence among radiology personnel and associated factors. In light of the increasing integration of ionizing radiation in medical diagnostics and treatment-specifically in areas such as computed tomography, fluoroscopy, and therapeutic radiology-it is vital for radiology personnel to consistently uphold rigorous radiation protection standards. This cross-sectional study employed a self-administered questionnaire to collect demographic data and assess various aspects of radiation protection adherence among radiology personnel. The gathered data were entered into SPSS 16 for statistical analysis. Among the 119 participants, 72 (60.5%) worked in the radiology department, and 88 (77.9%) were married. Significant associations were observed between adherence levels and marital status, age groups, years of experience, and department type. Study findings showed a significant association between several demographic factors and radiation protection adherence. Furthermore, our results highlight the value of implementing radiation protection courses to enhance adherence among personnel.

Proportion of industry payment value by category in radiology relative to other specialties.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to physicians are common, but it is unknown how the payments in different categories to radiologists compare to other specialties. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the proportion of industry payments to physicians in radiology in certain categories relative to other specialties. METHODS: The Open Payments Database was analyzed from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021 for industry payments to all allopathic & osteopathic physicians, and classified into distinct clinical specialties. Payments to physicians in three categories were calculated in relation to total payments in each specialty during the study period: consulting fees, research, and royalties/ownership (royalty, license, or current or prospective ownership or investment). RESULTS: The total value of industry payments to physicians across all specialties was just under $13 billion over the six-year period from 2017 to 2022. During this period, 51.4 million total payments were made to 791,746 physicians. US physicians in radiology received 452,027 payments for a total value of $357 million (2.8 % of total value). For radiologists, 32.8 % of industry payment value was attributed to royalties/ownership and 9.9 % to research, collectively adding up to 42.7 % of all industry payment. The only specialties with higher payments in these two categories considered reflective of innovation payments were the surgical specialties with higher royalty payments. CONCLUSION: The proportion of industry payments in radiology in categories reflecting innovation (royalty/ownership and research fees) is high and second only to surgical specialties.

Pediatric chest radiograph interpretation in a real-life setting.

Chest radiography is a frequently used imaging modality in children. However, only fair to moderate inter-observer agreement has been reported between chest radiograph interpreters. Most studies were not performed in real-world clinical settings. Our aims were to examine the agreement between emergency department pediatricians and board-certified radiologists in a pediatric real-life setting and to identify clinical risk factors for the discrepancies. Included were children aged 3 months to 18 years who underwent chest radiography in the emergency department not during the regular hours of radiologist interpretation. Every case was reviewed by an expert panel. Inter-observer agreement between emergency department pediatricians and board-certified radiologists was assessed by Cohen's kappa; risk factors for disagreement were analyzed. Among 1373 cases, the level of agreement between emergency department pediatricians and board-certified radiologists was "moderate" (k = 0.505). For radiographs performed after midnight, agreement was only "fair" (k = 0.391). The expert panel identified clinically relevant disagreements in 260 (18.9%) of the radiographs. Over-treatment of antibiotics was identified in 121 (8.9%) of the cases and under-treatment in 79 (5.8%). In a multivariable logistic regression, the following parameters were found to be significantly associated with disagreements: neurological background (p = 0.046), fever (p = 0.001), dyspnea (p = 0.014), and radiographs performed after midnight (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate agreement was found between emergency department pediatricians and board-certified radiologists in interpreting chest radiographs. Neurological background, fever, dyspnea, and radiographs performed after midnight were identified as risk factors for disagreement. Implementing these findings could facilitate the use of radiologist expertise, save time and resources, and potentially improve patient care. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Only fair to moderate inter-observer agreement has been reported between chest radiograph interpreters. • Most studies were not performed in real-world clinical settings. Clinical risk factors for disagreements have not been reported. WHAT IS NEW: • In this study, which included 1373 cases at the emergency department, the level of agreement between interpreters was only "moderate." • The major clinical parameters associated with interpretation discrepancies were neurological background, fever, dyspnea, and interpretations conducted during the night shift.

Characterizing Sentinel Lymph Node Status in Breast Cancer Patients Using a Deep-Learning Model Compared With Radiologists' Analysis of Grayscale Ultrasound and Lymphosonography.

ABSTRACT: The objective of the study was to use a deep learning model to differentiate between benign and malignant sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) in patients with breast cancer compared to radiologists' assessments.Seventy-nine women with breast cancer were enrolled and underwent lymphosonography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) examination after subcutaneous injection of ultrasound contrast agent around their tumor to identify SLNs. Google AutoML was used to develop image classification model. Grayscale and CEUS images acquired during the ultrasound examination were uploaded with a data distribution of 80% for training/20% for testing. The performance metric used was area under precision/recall curve (AuPRC). In addition, 3 radiologists assessed SLNs as normal or abnormal based on a clinical established classification. Two-hundred seventeen SLNs were divided in 2 for model development; model 1 included all SLNs and model 2 had an equal number of benign and malignant SLNs. Validation results model 1 AuPRC 0.84 (grayscale)/0.91 (CEUS) and model 2 AuPRC 0.91 (grayscale)/0.87 (CEUS). The comparison between artificial intelligence (AI) and readers' showed statistical significant differences between all models and ultrasound modes; model 1 grayscale AI versus readers, P = 0.047, and model 1 CEUS AI versus readers, P < 0.001. Model 2 r grayscale AI versus readers, P = 0.032, and model 2 CEUS AI versus readers, P = 0.041.The interreader agreement overall result showed κ values of 0.20 for grayscale and 0.17 for CEUS.In conclusion, AutoML showed improved diagnostic performance in balance volume datasets. Radiologist performance was not influenced by the dataset's distribution.

Network analysis of occupational stress and job satisfaction among radiologists.

Background: Occupational stress and job satisfaction significantly impact the well-being and performance of healthcare professionals, including radiologists. Understanding the complex interplay between these factors through network analysis can provide valuable insights into intervention strategies to enhance workplace satisfaction and productivity. Method: In this study, a convenience sampling method was used to recruit 312 radiologists for participation. Data on socio-demographic characteristics, job satisfaction measured by the Minnesota job satisfaction questionnaire revised short version (MJSQ-RSV), and occupational stress assessed using the occupational stress scale. Network analysis was employed to analyze the data in this study. Results: The network analysis revealed intricate patterns of associations between occupational stress and job satisfaction symptoms among radiologists. Organizational management and occupational interests emerged as crucial nodes in the network, indicating strong relationships within these domains. Additionally, intrinsic satisfaction was identified as a central symptom with high connectivity in the network structure. The stability analysis demonstrated robustness in the network edges and centrality metrics, supporting the reliability of the findings. Conclusion: This study sheds light on the complex relationships between occupational stress and job satisfaction in radiologists, offering valuable insights for targeted interventions and support strategies to promote well-being and job satisfaction in healthcare settings.

The impact of the radiology career on family planning: A survey of practicing radiologists and trainees.

PURPOSE: As the field of medicine witnesses evolving attitudes towards work-life balance, barriers to family planning emerge as an important theme. Though these challenges have been investigated in many fields, there has been little work done on this subject within radiology. Here we present the first formal survey of radiologists on topics related to family planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this single-institution prospective study, a 40-question comprehensive survey was developed and distributed via email. Responses from 76 participants were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 76 respondents, a diverse number of ages, points in the career path, and practice settings were represented. A majority of respondents were male (52/76; 68 %) and married (56/75; 73.7 %). Respondents reported a miscarriage rate of 25 %, which is slightly higher than the reported rate for the general population of 20 %. Significantly more female respondents reported a negative stigma associated with being pregnant as a radiologist as compared to their male colleagues (60.9 % vs. 15.4 %; p < 0.001)). Male respondents reported significantly less parental leave than their female colleagues, most commonly reporting zero weeks of leave as compared to 10 weeks for female respondents (p < 0.001). Numerous respondents cited lack of childcare support as a major issue. CONCLUSION: We have identified several key areas of concern, including a need for improving parental leave policies, addressing pregnancy stigma, and increasing access to childcare support. Overall, our study lays the groundwork for discussions and policy changes within radiology at both the institutional and national level to ensure the continued interest of trainees and satisfaction of radiologists.

Changes in the Radiology Practice Landscape and Indicators of Practice Consolidation From 2014 to 2023.

BACKGROUND. A range of economic and health policy incentives are leading to ongoing consolidation among payers, hospitals, and physician practices. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate consolidation among radiologists' affiliated practices through 2023, analyze the impact of consolidation on such practices' specialty mix and size, and assess radiologists' new affiliations after prior practices cease. METHODS. CMS data from 2014 to 2023 were used to identify all radiologists nationally along with their affiliated practices. Based on the specialty mix of all affiliated physicians, practices were categorized as radiology only or multispecialty; multispecialty practices were further categorized as radiology majority, other specialty majority, or no majority specialty. Practices that ceased (i.e., became absent within CMS data) were identified. Temporal shifts were assessed to infer consolidation patterns. RESULTS. From 2014 to 2023, the number of radiologists enrolled in Medicare increased 17.3% (from 30,723 to 36,024), whereas the number of affiliated practices decreased 14.7% (from 5059 to 4313). The number of radiology-only, radiology-majority, other-specialty-majority, and no-majority-specialty practices changed by -31.8% (from 3104 to 2118), 10.9% (from 402 to 446), -5.7% (from 615 to 580), and 24.6% (from 938 to 1169), respectively. The number of practices with one to two, three to nine, 10-24, 25-49, 50-99, and 100 or more radiologists changed by -18.7% (from 2233 to 1815), -34.4% (from 1406 to 923), -25.2% (from 910 to 681), 33.2% (from 352 to 469), 121.6% (from 125 to 277), and 348.5% (from 33 to 148). A total of 3494 practices ceased, including 2281 radiology-only practices. Among 3854 radiologists whose only affiliation was a ceased radiology-only practice, their subsequent-year affiliation was a radiology-only practice in 54.3% and a multispecialty practice type in the remaining instances. CONCLUSION. An overall decrease in the number of radiology practices and concurrent growth in the number of radiologists was mirrored by shifts from small toward large practices and from radiology-only toward multispecialty practices, consistent with ongoing practice consolidation. Although determining the causes of consolidation was beyond this scope of this study, the shifts may relate to economic incentives and legislative changes favoring large multispecialty practices. CLINICAL IMPACT. The continued consolidation of radiologists into large multispecialty practices may facilitate subspecialization and greater negotiating power in payer contracting. However, radiologists may prefer smaller and/or radiology-only practices for reasons of autonomy and influence on practice structure.

Burnout and the role of mentorship for radiology trainees and early career radiologists

Burnout is a widespread issue among physicians, including radiologists and radiology trainees. Long hours, isolation, and substantial stress levels contribute to healthcare workers experiencing a substantially higher rate of burnout compared with other professionals. Resident physicians, continuously exposed to stressors such as new clinical situations and performance feedback, are particularly susceptible. Mentorship has proven to be an effective strategy in mitigating burnout. Various mentorship delivery models exist, all aiming to have mentors serve as role models to mentees, thereby alleviating stress and anxiety. Physician groups and healthcare enterprises have actively implemented these programs, recognizing them as both successful and cost-effective. This article explores different mentorship models, their implementation processes, and the effectiveness of these programs as a standard component of academic departments.

Imaging overuse in the emergency department: The view of radiologists and emergency physicians.

PURPOSE: To identify the perceived factors contributing to imaging overuse in the emergency department, according to radiologists and emergency physicians. METHOD: A survey study on imaging overuse in the emergency department was conducted among 66 radiologists and 425 emergency physicians. Five-point Likert scales (not a problem at all/strongly disagree [score 1] to very serious problem/strongly agree [score 5]) were used to score the various aspects of overimaging. RESULTS: Both radiologists and emergency physicians gave a median score of 4 to the question if imaging overuse is a problem in their emergency department. CT accounts for the vast majority of imaging overuse, according to both radiologists (84.8%) and emergency physicians (75.3%). Defensive medicine/fear of malpractice, the presence of less experienced staff, and easy access to imaging all were given a median score of 4 as factors that influence imaging overuse, by both physician groups. Median ratings regarding the influence of pressure from patients and a lack of time to examine patients on imaging overuse varied between 3 and 4 for radiologists and emergency physicians. Pressure from consultants to perform imaging, the use of imaging to decrease turnaround time in the emergency department, a lack of space in the emergency department, a lack of proper medical education, and inability to access outside imaging studies, were also indicated to give rise to imaging overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging overuse in the emergency department (particularly CT overuse) is a problem according to most radiologists and emergency physicians, and is driven by several factors.

Service Improvements and Workload Increases: Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) Re-Audit of Curative Intent Radiotherapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).

AIMS: The Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) audit of radical radiotherapy (RR) for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in 2013 concluded that there was under-treatment compared to international comparators and marked variability between cancer networks. Elderly patients were less likely to receive guideline recommended treatments. Access to technological developments was low. Various national and local interventions have since taken place. This study aims to re-assess national practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiotherapy departments completed one questionnaire for each patient started on RR for 4 weeks in January 2023. RESULTS: Ninety-three percent of centres returned data on 295 patients. RR has increased 70% since 2013 but patients on average wait 20% longer to start treatment (p = 0.02). Staging investigations were often outside a desirable timeframe (79% of PET/CT scans). Advanced planning techniques are used more frequently: 4-dimensional planning increased from 33% to 90% (P < 0.001), cone beam imaging from 67% to 97% (p < 0.001) and colleague led peer review increased from 41% to 73% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There have been significant improvements in care. There has been a considerable increase in clinical oncology workload with evidence of stress on the system that requires additional resourcing.

Breast Implant Imaging Surveillance Practice: Survey of Breast Imaging Radiologists in the Society of Breast Imaging.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this Society of Breast Imaging (SBI)-member survey study were to assess the current imaging patterns for evaluation of symptomatic and asymptomatic breast implant integrity, including modalities used and imaging intervals. METHODS: A 12-question survey assessing the frequency of imaging modalities used to evaluate implant integrity, approximate number of breast implant integrity studies requested per month, intervals of integrity studies, and referring provider and radiology practice characteristics was distributed to members of the SBI. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 7.6% (143/1890). Of responding radiologists, 54.2% (77/142) were in private, 29.6% (42/142) in academic, and 16.2% (23/142) in hybrid practice. Among respondents, the most common initial examination for evaluating implant integrity was MRI without contrast at 53.1% (76/143), followed by handheld US at 46.9% (67/143). Of respondents using US, 67.4% (91/135) also evaluated the breast tissue for abnormalities. Among respondents, 34.1% (46/135) reported being very confident or confident in US for diagnosing implant rupture. There was a range of reported intervals for performing implant integrity studies: 39.1% (43/110) every 2-3 years, 26.4% (29/110) every 4-5 years, 15.5% (17/110) every 6-10 years, and 19.1% (21/110) every 10 years. CONCLUSION: For assessment of implant integrity, the majority of respondents (53.2%, 76/143) reported MRI as initial imaging test. US is less costly, but the minority of respondents (34.1%, 46/135) had confidence in US performance. Also, the minority of respondents (39.1%, 43/110) performed implant integrity evaluations every 2-3 years per the FDA recommendations for asymptomatic surveillance.

The Impact of Mammographic, Radiologist, and Patient Factors on the Likelihood of Probably Benign (BI-RADS 3) Assessment at Diagnostic Mammography.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of mammographic, radiologist, and patient factors on BI-RADS 3 assessment at diagnostic mammography in patients recalled from screening mammography. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study of consecutive unique diagnostic mammography examinations in asymptomatic patients recalled from screening mammography March 5, 2014, to December 31, 2019, was conducted in a single large United States health care institution. Mammographic features (mass, calcification, distortion, asymmetry), breast density, prior examination, and BI-RADS assessment were extracted from reports by natural language processing. Patient age, race, and ethnicity were extracted from the electronic health record. Radiologist years in practice, recall rate, and number of interpreted diagnostic mammograms were calculated. A mixed effect logistic regression model evaluated factors associated with likelihood of BI-RADS 3 compared with other BI-RADS assessments. RESULTS: A total of 12 080 diagnostic mammography examinations were performed during the study period, yielding 2010 (16.6%) BI-RADS 3 and 10 070 (83.4%) other BI-RADS assessments. Asymmetry (odds ratio [OR] = 6.49, P <.001) and calcification (OR = 5.59, P <.001) were associated with increased likelihood of BI-RADS 3 assessment; distortion (OR = 0.20, P <.001), dense breast parenchyma (OR = 0.82, P <.001), prior examination (OR = 0.63, P = .01), and increasing patient age (OR = 0.99, P <.001) were associated with decreased likelihood. Mass, patient race or ethnicity, and radiologist factors were not significantly associated with BI-RADS 3 assessment. Malignancy rate for BI-RADS 3 lesions was 1.6%. CONCLUSION: Asymmetry and calcifications had an increased likelihood of BI-RADS 3 assessment at diagnostic evaluation with low likelihood of malignancy, while radiologist features had no association.

What is the added value of specialist radiology review of multidisciplinary team meeting cases in a tertiary care center?

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are an important component of the workload of radiologists. This study investigated how often subspecialized radiologists change patient management in MDTMs at a tertiary care institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over 2 years, six subspecialty radiologists documented their contributions to MDTMs at a tertiary care center. Both in-house and external imaging examinations were discussed at the MDTMs. All imaging examinations (whether primary or second opinion) were interpreted and reported by subspecialty radiologist prior to the MDTMs. The management change ratio (MCratio) of the radiologist was defined as the number of cases in which the radiologist's input in the MDTM changed patient management beyond the information that was already provided by the in-house (primary or second opinion) radiology report, as a proportion of the total number of cases whose imaging examinations were prepared for demonstration in the MDTM. RESULTS: Sixty-eight MDTMs were included. The time required for preparing and attending all MDTMs (excluding imaging examinations that had not been reported yet) was 11,000 min, with a median of 172 min (IQR 113-200 min) per MDTM, and a median of 9 min (IQR 8-13 min) per patient. The radiologists' input changed patient management in 113 out of 1138 cases, corresponding to an MCratio of 8.4%. The median MCratio per MDTM was 6% (IQR 0-17%). CONCLUSION: Radiologists' time investment in MDTMs is considerable relative to the small proportion of cases in which they influence patient management in the MDTM. The use of radiologists for MDTMs should therefore be improved. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The use of radiologists for MDTMs (multidisciplinary team meetings) should be improved, because their time investment in MDTMs is considerable relative to the small proportion of cases in which they influence patient management in the MDTM. KEY POINTS: • Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are an important component of the workload of radiologists. • In a tertiary care center in which all imaging examinations have already been interpreted and reported by subspecialized radiologists before the MDTM takes place, the median time investment of a radiologist for preparing and demonstrating one MDTM patient is 9 min. • In this setting, the radiologist changes patient management in only a minority of cases in the MDTM.

Patterns and Predictors of Referral for Screening Breast MRI: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Introduction: Women with ≥20% lifetime breast cancer risk can receive supplemental breast cancer screening with MRI. We examined factors associated with recommendation for screening breast MRI among primary care providers (PCPs), gynecologists (GYNs), and radiologists. Methods: We conducted a sequential mixed-methods study. Quantitative: Participants (N = 72) reported recommendations for mammogram and breast MRI via clinical vignettes describing hypothetical patients with moderate, high, and very high breast cancer risk. Logistic regressions assessed the relationships of clinician-level factors (gender, specialty, years practicing) and practice-level factors (practice type, imaging facilities available) with screening recommendations. Qualitative: We interviewed a subset of survey participants (n = 17, 17/72 = 24%) regarding their decision-making about breast cancer screening recommendations. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with directed content analysis. Results: Compared with PCPs, GYNs and radiologists were significantly more likely to recommend breast MRI for high-risk (ORs = 4.09 and 4.09, respectively) and very-high-risk patients (ORs = 8.56 and 18.33, respectively). Qualitative analysis identified two key phases along the clinical pathway for high-risk women. Phase 1 was "identifying high-risk women," which included three subthemes (systems for risk assessment, barriers to risk assessment, scope of practice issues). Phase 2 was "referral for screening," which included three subthemes (conflicting guidelines, scope of practice issues, legal implications). Frequency of themes differed between specialties, potentially explaining findings from the quantitative phase. Conclusions: There are significant differences between specialties in supplemental breast cancer screening recommendations. Multilevel interventions are needed to support identification and management of women with high breast cancer risk, particularly for PCPs.

How Long Does Contouring Really Take? Results of the Royal College of Radiologists Contouring Surveys.

AIMS: The success and safety of modern radiotherapy relies on accurate contouring. Understanding the time taken to complete radiotherapy contours is critical to informing workforce planning and, in the context of a workforce shortfall, advocating for investment in technology and multi-professional skills mix. We aimed to quantify the time taken to delineate target volumes for radical radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Royal College of Radiologists circulated two electronic surveys via email to all clinical oncology consultants in the UK. The individual case survey requested anonymous data regarding the next five patients contoured for radical radiotherapy. The second survey collected data on respondents' usual practice in radiotherapy contouring. RESULTS: The median time to contour one radiotherapy case was 85 minutes (IQR = 50-131 minutes). Marked variability between and within tumour sites was evident: paediatric cancers took the most time (median = 210 minutes, IQR = 87.5 minutes), followed by head and neck and gynaecological cancers (median = 120 minutes, IQR = 71 and 72.5 minutes respectively). Breast cancer contouring required the least time (median = 43 minutes, IQR = 60 minutes). Radiotherapy technique, inclusion of nodes and 4D CT planning were associated with longer contouring times. A non-medical professional was involved in contouring in 65% of cases, but clinical oncology consultants were involved in target volume delineation in 90% of cases, and OARs in 74%. Peer review took place in 46% of cases with 56% of consultants reporting no time for peer review in their job plan. CONCLUSION: Contouring for radical radiotherapy is complex and time-consuming, and despite increasing involvement of non-medical professionals, clinical oncology consultants remain the primary practitioners. Peer review practice is variable and time is often a limiting factor. Many factors influence the time required for contouring, and departments should take these factors and the need for peer-review into account when developing job plans.

Competence of radiologists in cardiac CT and MR imaging in Europe: insights from the ESCR Registry.

RATIONALE: To provide an overview of the current status of cardiac multimodality imaging practices in Europe and radiologist involvement using data from the European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology (ESCR) MRCT-registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Numbers on cardiac CT and MRI examinations were extracted from the MRCT-registry of the ESCR, entered between January 2011 and October 2023 (n = 432,265). Data collection included the total/annual numbers of examinations, indications, complications, and reporting habits. RESULTS: Thirty-two countries contributed to the MRCT-registry, including 29 European countries. Between 2011 and 2022, there was a 4.5-fold increase in annually submitted CT examinations, from 3368 to 15,267, and a 3.8-fold increase in MRI examinations, from 3445 to 13,183. The main indications for cardiac CT were suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) (59%) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement planning (21%). The number of patients with intermediate pretest probability who underwent CT for suspected CAD showed an increase from 61% in 2012 to 82% in 2022. The main MRI indications were suspected myocarditis (26%), CAD (21%), and suspected cardiomyopathy (19%). Adverse event rates were very low for CT (0.3%) and MRI (0.7%) examinations. Reporting of CT and MRI examinations was performed mainly by radiologists (respectively 76% and 71%) and, to a lesser degree, in consensus with non-radiologists (19% and 27%, respectively). The remaining examinations (4.9% CT and 1.7% MRI) were reported by non-radiological specialties or in separate readings of radiologists and non-radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Real-life data on cardiac imaging in Europe using the largest available MRCT-registry demonstrate a considerable increase in examinations over the past years, the vast majority of which are read by radiologists. These findings indicate that radiologists contribute to meeting the increasing demands of competent and effective care in cardiac imaging to a relevant extent. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The number of cardiac CT and MRI examinations has risen over the past years, and radiologists read the vast majority of these studies as recorded in the MRCT-registry. KEY POINTS: • The number of cardiac imaging examinations is constantly increasing. • Radiologists play a central role in providing cardiac CT and MR imaging services to a large volume of patients. • Cardiac CT and MR imaging examinations performed and read by radiologists show a good safety profile.

Radiologists predict differential resource utilization but not clinical outcome in emergency department patients imaged with ultrasound for right upper quadrant pain.

PURPOSE: Radiologists with diverse training, specialization, and habits interpret imaging in the Emergency Department. It is necessary to understand if their variation predicts differential value. The purpose of this study was to determine whether attending radiologist variation predicts major clinical outcomes in adult Emergency Department patients imaged with ultrasound for right upper quadrant pain. METHODS: Consecutive ED patients imaged with ultrasound for RUQ pain from 10/8/2016 to 8/10/2022 were included (N = 7097). The primary outcome was prediction of hospital admission by signing attending radiologist. Secondary outcomes included: ED and hospital length of stay (LOS), 30-day mortality, 30-day re-presentation rate, subspecialty consultation, advanced imaging follow up (HIDA, MRI, CT), and intervention (ERCP, drainage or surgery). Sample size was determined a priori (detectable effect size: w = 0.06). Data were adjusted for demographic data, Elixhauser comorbidities, number of ED visits in prior year, clinical data, and system factors (38 covariates). P-values were corrected for multiple comparisons (false discovery rate-adjusted p-values). RESULTS: The included ultrasounds were read by 35 radiologists (median exams/radiologist: 145 [74.5-241.5]). Signing radiologist did not predict hospitalization (p = 0.85), abdominopelvic surgery or intervention within 30 days, re-presentation to the Emergency Department within 30 days, or subspecialty consultation. Radiologist did predict difference in Emergency Department length of stay (p < 0.001) although this difference was small and imprecise. HIDA was mentioned variably by radiologists (range 0-19%, p < 0.001), and mention of HIDA in the ultrasound report increased 10-fold the odds of HIDA being performed in the next 72 h (odds ratio 10.4 [8.0-13.4], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Radiologist variability did not predict meaningful outcome differences for patients with right upper quadrant pain undergoing ultrasound in the Emergency Department, but when radiologists mention HIDA in their reports, it predicts a 10-fold increase in the odds a HIDA is performed. Radiologists are relied on for interpretation that shapes subsequent patient care, and it is important to consider how radiologist variability can influence both outcome and resource utilization.

Diagnostic performance of deep learning models versus radiologists in COVID-19 pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Although several studies have compared the performance of deep learning (DL) models and radiologists for the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia on CT of the chest, these results have not been collectively evaluated. We performed a meta-analysis of original articles comparing the performance of DL models versus radiologists in detecting COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on the three main medical literature databases, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, for articles published as of February 1st, 2023. We included original scientific articles that compared DL models trained to detect COVID-19 pneumonia on CT to radiologists. Meta-analysis was performed to determine DL versus radiologist performance in terms of model sensitivity and specificity, taking into account inter and intra-study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles met the inclusion criteria. Based on the meta-analytic calculations, DL models had significantly higher pooled sensitivity (0.933 vs. 0.829, p < 0.001) compared to radiologists with similar pooled specificity (0.905 vs. 0.897, p = 0.746). In the differentiation of COVID-19 versus community-acquired pneumonia, the DL models had significantly higher sensitivity compared to radiologists (0.915 vs. 0.836, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: DL models have high performance for screening of COVID-19 pneumonia on chest CT, offering the possibility of these models for augmenting radiologists in clinical practice.