High-Temporal/High-Spatial Resolution Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Improves Diagnostic Accuracy Compared With Standard Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With High Background Parenchymal Enhancement.

PURPOSE: To compare breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnostic performance using a standard high-spatial resolution protocol versus a simultaneous high-temporal/high-spatial resolution (HTHS) protocol in women with high levels of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of contrast-enhanced breast MRIs performed at our institution before and after the introduction of the HTHS protocol. We compared diagnostic performance of the HTHS and standard protocol by comparing cancer detection rate (CDR) and positive predictive value of biopsy (PPV3) among women with high BPE (ie, marked or moderate). RESULTS: Among women with high BPE, the HTHS protocol demonstrated increased CDR (23.6 per 1,000 patients v 7.9 per 1,000 patients; P = 0. 013) and increased PPV3 (16.0% v 6.3%; P = .021) compared with the standard protocol. This corresponded to a 9.8% (95% CI, 1.29 to 18.3) decrease in the proportion of unnecessary biopsies among high-BPE patients and an additional cancer yield of 15.7 per 1,000 patients (95% CI, 1.3 to 18.3). CONCLUSION: Among women with high BPE, HTHS MRI improved diagnostic performance, leading to an additional cancer yield of 15.7 cancers per 1,000 women and concomitantly decreasing unnecessary biopsies by 9.8%. A multisite prospective trial is warranted to confirm these findings and to pave the way for more widespread clinical implementation.

National Survey to Assess Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Differences Among Radiology Residency Applicants Regarding Factors Impacting Program Selection.

RATIONAL AND OBJECTIVES: Radiology has one of the lowest female representation rates in medicine and recruiting female residents is a challenge for some residency programs. There is limited understanding of gender differences among residency applicants during program selection. The study objective is to investigate which program factors were considered most important by radiology residency applicants and to assess for differences by gender, race and ethnicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed electronically to diagnostic and interventional radiology residency programs in the US and Canada via the Association of Program Coordinators in Radiology (APCR). Residents were asked to evaluate the importance of 30 factors during evaluation of residency programs using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not important, 5 = extremely important). RESULTS: 370 residents and 1 fellow completed the survey. Of the respondents, 269 were male (72.5%) and 101 were female (27.2%). The most important factors to respondents during program selection were program culture (4.42), geographic location (4.17), fellowship placement (4.14), and imaging and/or procedure volume (3.98). There was a significant difference between male and female respondents in the importance of program culture (p = 0.002), composition of current residents (p = 0.007), percentage of current female residents (p < 0.0001), program size (p = 0.047), call schedule (p = 0.025), percentage of female faculty (p < 0.0001), faculty ethnic and racial diversity (p < 0.0001), resident ethnic and racial diversity (p < 0.0001), which female respondents ranked more highly. CONCLUSION: Applicants consider many factors during residency program selection. Program culture, geographic location, fellowship placement and imaging and/or procedural volume were most important. There were significant differences by gender, race and ethnicity in importance of several factors.