Burnout of Radiologists: Frequency, Risk Factors, and Remedies: A Report of the ACR Commission on Human Resources.

Burnout is a concern for radiologists. The burnout rate is greater among diagnostic radiologists than the mean for all physicians, while radiation oncologists have a slightly lower burnout rate. Burnout can result in unprofessional behavior, thoughts of suicide, premature retirement, and errors in patient care. Strategies to reduce burnout include addressing the sources of job dissatisfaction, instilling lifestyle balance, finding reasons to work other than money, improving money management, developing a support group, and seeking help when needed.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Ductal Carcinoma in Situ.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a breast neoplasm with potential for progression to invasive cancer. Management commonly involves excision, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy. Surgical assessment of regional lymph nodes is rarely indicated except in cases of microinvasion or mastectomy. Radiotherapy is employed for local control in breast conservation, although it may be omitted for select low-risk situations. Several radiotherapy techniques exist beyond standard whole-breast irradiation (ie, partial-breast irradiation [PBI], hypofractionated whole-breast radiation); evidence for these is evolving. We present an update of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria® for the management of DCIS. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria® are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions, which are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review includes an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi technique) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Radiologist manpower considerations and Imaging 3.0: effort planning for value-based imaging.

Our specialty is seeking to establish the value of imaging in the longitudinal patient-care continuum. We recognize the need to assess the value of our contributions rather than concentrating primarily on generating revenue. This recent focus is a result of both increased cost-containment efforts and regulatory demands. Imaging 3.0 is a value-based perspective that intends to describe and facilitate value-based imaging. Imaging 3.0 includes a broad set of initiatives addressing the visibility of radiologists, and emphasizing quality and safety oversight by radiologists, which are new directions of focus for us. Imaging 3.0 also addresses subspecialty imaging and off-hours imaging, which are existing areas of practice that are emblematic of inconsistent service delivery across all hours. Looking to the future, Imaging 3.0 describes how imaging services could be integrated into the framework of accountable care organizations. Although all these efforts may be essential, they necessitate manpower expenditures, and these efforts are not directly covered by revenue. If we recognize the urgency of need in developing these concepts, we can justify the manpower and staffing expenditures each organization is willing to shoulder in reaching Imaging 3.0.

Radiology practice environment: options, variations, and differences-a report of the ACR commission on human resources.

Radiologists today practice in diverse environments in addition to the traditional private practice model. Practice environments are evolving at a rapid rate, and the ACR Commission on Human Resources previously detailed the distribution of radiologists in practice in its workforce survey. Here, the commission describes the key practice options available and illustrates important differences in physician autonomy, efficiency, productivity, and subspecialty versus general practice among the practice environments. These attributes can in turn be useful to radiologists in deciding what type of work environment to seek.

On using 3D γ-analysis for IMRT and VMAT pretreatment plan QA.

PURPOSE: To investigate using 3D γ analysis for IMRT and VMAT QA. METHODS: We explored and studied 3D γ-analysis by comparing TPS computed and EPID back-projection reconstructed doses in patient's CT images. Two 3D γ quantities, γ(PTV) and γ(10), were proposed and studied for evaluating the QA results, and compared to 2D γ (MapCheck composite: γ(MC)). RESULTS: It was found that when 3%(global)/3 mm criteria was used, all IMRT and 90% of VMAT plans passed QA with a γ pass rate ≥90%. A significant statistical correlation was observed between 3D and 2D γ-analysis results for IMRT QA if γ(10) and γ(MC) are concerned, but no significant relation is found between γ(PTV) and γ(MC). CONCLUSIONS: 3D γ analysis based on EPID dose back-projection may provide a feasible tool for IMRT and VMAT pretreatment plan QA.

A phase I trial of etanidazole and hyperfractionated radiotherapy in children with diffuse brainstem glioma.

PURPOSE: To determine the toxicity and maximum tolerated dose of etanidazole administered concurrently with hyperfractionated radiation therapy (HRT) for children with brainstem glioma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighteen patients with brainstem glioma were treated with etanidazole and HRT on a dose escalation protocol (Phase I trial) between 1990 and 1996. All patients had MRI confirmation of diffuse pontine glioma and signs/symptoms of cranial nerve deficit, ataxia, or long tract signs of <6 months' duration. Cervicomedullary tumors were excluded. Patients (median age: 8.5 years; 11 males, 7 females) received HRT to the tumor volume plus a 2-cm margin with parallel-opposed 6-15-MV photons. The total dose was 66 Gy in 44 fractions (1.5 Gy b.i.d., with at least 6 h between fractions) for the first 3 patients and 63 Gy in 42 fractions for the subsequent 15 patients. Etanidazole was administered as a rapid i.v. infusion 30 min before the morning fraction of HRT. Planned doses of etanidazole were 1.8 g/m(2) x 17 doses (30.6 g/m(2)) at Step 1 to a maximum of 2.4 g/m(2) x 21 doses (50.4 g/m(2)) at Step 8. Dose escalation was planned with 3 patients at each of the 8 levels. RESULTS: Three patients were treated at each dose level except Level 2, on which only 1 patient was treated. The highest dose level achieved was Level 7, which delivered a total etanidazole dose of 46.2 g/m(2). Two patients were treated at this level, and both patients experienced Grade 3 toxicity in the form of a diffuse cutaneous rash. Three patients received a lower dose of 42 g/m(2) (dose Level 6) without significant toxicity, and this represents the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). There were 23 cases of Grade 1 toxicity (10 vomiting, 5 peripheral neuropathy, 2 rash, 2 constipation, 1 weight loss, 3 others), 11 cases of Grade 2 toxicity (4 vomiting, 2 skin erythema, 2 constipation, 1 arthralgia, 1 urinary retention, 1 hematologic), and 4 Grade 3 toxicities (2 rash, 1 vomiting, 1 skin desquamation). Grade 2 or 3 peripheral neuropathy was not seen at any dose level. The median survival from the start of treatment was 8.5 months (range: 3-58 months). CONCLUSION: The MTD of etanidazole in children receiving HRT for brainstem glioma is 42 g/m(2), with cutaneous rash as the dose-limiting toxicity. This is in contrast to the adult experience, which demonstrates a 24% lower MTD of 34 g/m(2) limited by peripheral neuropathy.