A Multicenter Assessment of Interreader Reliability of LI-RADS Version 2018 for MRI and CT.

Background Various limitations have impacted research evaluating reader agreement for Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS). Purpose To assess reader agreement of LI-RADS in an international multicenter multireader setting using scrollable images. Materials and Methods This retrospective study used deidentified clinical multiphase CT and MRI and reports with at least one untreated observation from six institutions and three countries; only qualifying examinations were submitted. Examination dates were October 2017 to August 2018 at the coordinating center. One untreated observation per examination was randomly selected using observation identifiers, and its clinically assigned features were extracted from the report. The corresponding LI-RADS version 2018 category was computed as a rescored clinical read. Each examination was randomly assigned to two of 43 research readers who independently scored the observation. Agreement for an ordinal modified four-category LI-RADS scale (LR-1, definitely benign; LR-2, probably benign; LR-3, intermediate probability of malignancy; LR-4, probably hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]; LR-5, definitely HCC; LR-M, probably malignant but not HCC specific; and LR-TIV, tumor in vein) was computed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Agreement was also computed for dichotomized malignancy (LR-4, LR-5, LR-M, and LR-TIV), LR-5, and LR-M. Agreement was compared between research-versus-research reads and research-versus-clinical reads. Results The study population consisted of 484 patients (mean age, 62 years ± 10 [SD]; 156 women; 93 CT examinations, 391 MRI examinations). ICCs for ordinal LI-RADS, dichotomized malignancy, LR-5, and LR-M were 0.68 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.73), 0.63 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.70), 0.58 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.66), and 0.46 (95% CI: 0.31, 0.61) respectively. Research-versus-research reader agreement was higher than research-versus-clinical agreement for modified four-category LI-RADS (ICC, 0.68 vs 0.62, respectively; P = .03) and for dichotomized malignancy (ICC, 0.63 vs 0.53, respectively; P = .005), but not for LR-5 (P = .14) or LR-M (P = .94). Conclusion There was moderate agreement for LI-RADS version 2018 overall. For some comparisons, research-versus-research reader agreement was higher than research-versus-clinical reader agreement, indicating differences between the clinical and research environments that warrant further study. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorials by Johnson and Galgano and Smith in this issue.

Imaging Among the Underserved: Utilization and Expenditures in a Student-Run Free Clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To determine imaging utilization and expenditures among an underserved population at a student-run free clinic. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of billing records for all radiology studies performed over a 4-year period at a student-run free clinic supervised by physician faculty. All imaging services were outsourced through either direct payment by the clinic to a local imaging group or through in-kind donations. Radiology studies were grouped by modality and diagnostic category. Data were analyzed to determine overall and average imaging utilization and expenditures. RESULTS: Across the 4-year study period, 413 radiology studies were performed with a yearly average of 103 (SD = 16). During this time, 192 (46%) ultrasounds, 123 (30%) radiographic studies, 40 (10%) MRIs, 37 (9%) CTs, 8 (2%) interventional procedures, and 5 (1%) nuclear imaging studies were obtained. Overall, expenditures were $157,888 with a yearly average of $39,472 (SD = $1982). In-kind donations accounted for $138,508 (88%) of expenditures. Across the 4-year study period, utilization increased by 15% with less than 1% increase in expenditures. DISCUSSION: Ultrasound was the most common imaging modality used. Overall imaging utilization was considerably less than that of published data in an ambulatory setting.

Change Management Strategies Toward Dismantling Race-Based Structural Barriers in Radiology.

Political momentum for antiracist policies grew out of the collective trauma highlighted during the COVID pandemic. This prompted discussions of root cause analyses for differences in health outcomes among historically underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minorities. Dismantling structural racism in medicine is an ambitious goal that requires widespread buy-in and transdisciplinary collaborations across institutions to establish systematic, rigorous approaches that enable sustainable change. Radiology is at the center of medical care and renewed focus on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) provides an opportune window for radiologists to facilitate an open forum to address racialized medicine to catalyze real and lasting change. The framework of change management can help radiology practices create and maintain this change while minimizing disruption. This article discusses how change management principles can be leveraged by radiology to lead EDI interventions that will encourage honest dialogue, serve as a platform to support institutional EDI efforts, and lead to systemic change.

Starting a Free Ultrasound Clinic for the Underserved: Considerations and Overcoming Challenges.

Many radiologists are interested in providing affordable care to underserved populations but are unsure how to accomplish it. We present a model for providing imaging services to the underserved with an emphasis on the challenges we encountered and strategies we used to overcome them. In partnership with our medical school's student-run free clinic, we developed a community-based ultrasound service that provides diagnostic ultrasound examinations to an uninsured urban population to address the need of timely access to care and integrated follow-up care. Image storage and reporting were fully integrated with our existing imaging informatics and electronic medical record systems. Radiology residents play a central role in the operation of the service while gaining hands-on ultrasound experience, in partnership with volunteer sonographers, radiology attendings, and medical students.

The Roots of Structural Racism in the United States and their Manifestations During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the disproportionate morbidity and mortality borne by racial minorities, patients of lower socioeconomic status, and patients lacking health insurance reflect pre-existing structural inequities. Structural racism is racial discrimination rooted in history, perpetuated through policies, and manifested in disparities in healthcare, housing, education, employment, and wealth. Although these disparities exert greater impacts on health outcomes than do genetics or behavior, scientists, and policy makers are only beginning to name structural racism as a key determinant of population health and take the necessary steps to dismantle it. In radiology, structural racism impacts how imaging services are utilized. Here we review the history and policies that contribute to structural racism and predispose minority and disadvantaged communities to inferior outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to identify policy changes that could promote more equitable access to radiologic services.

Reducing Health Disparities in Radiology Through Social Determinants of Health: Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the disproportionate morbidity and mortality borne by racial minorities, patients of lower socioeconomic status, and patients lacking health insurance reflect the critical role of social determinants of health, which are manifestations of entrenched structural inequities. In radiology, social determinants of health lead to disparate use of imaging services through multiple intersecting contributors, on both the provider and patient side, affecting diagnosis and treatment. Disparities on the provider side include ordering of initial or follow-up imaging studies and providing standard-of-care interventional procedures, while patient factors include differences in awareness of screening exams and confidence in the healthcare system. Disparate utilization of mammography and lung cancer screening lead to delayed diagnosis, while differential provision of minimally invasive interventional procedures contributes to differential outcomes related to treatment. Interventions designed to mitigate social determinants of health could help to equalize the healthcare system. Here we review disparities in access and health outcomes in radiology. We investigate underlying contributing factors in order to identify potential policy changes that could promote more equitable health in radiology.

LI-RADS and transplantation: challenges and controversies.

Patients with early stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be cured by liver transplantation. HCC imaging features on CT or MRI are specific enough to allow for definitive diagnosis and treatment without the need of confirmatory biopsy. When applied to the appropriate at-risk population the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) imaging criteria achieve high specificity and positive predictive value for the diagnosis of HCC. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) is the United States organization that aims to assure the adequate and fair distribution of livers across candidates. Given the importance of fair organ allocation, OPTN also provides stringent imaging criteria for the diagnosis of HCC aiming to avoid false positive diagnosis. Although most imaging criteria are identical for both systems, discrepancies between LI-RADS and the current OPTN classification system for HCC diagnosis exists. Main differences include, but are not limited to, the binary approach of OPTN to classify lesions as HCC or not, versus the probabilistic algorithmic approach of LI-RADS, technical and interpretation considerations, and the approach towards treated lesions. The purpose of this article is to highlight the similarities and discrepancies between LI-RADS and the current OPTN criteria for HCC diagnosis and the implications that these differences may have on the management of patients who are transplant candidates.

Biliary and pancreatic ductal dilation in patients on methadone maintenance therapy.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the diameter of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile ducts and pancreatic ducts in patients on methadone maintenance therapy is increased when compared with control subjects. METHODS: Between January 1, 2000 and March 15, 2013, a total of 97 patients (mean age 49.9, range 22-79, 65 male, 32 female) were identified who were receiving chronic methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) when they underwent imaging with abdominal MRI or a contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT. A group of 97 consecutive non-MMT control patients (mean age 51.4, range 21-86, 45 male, 52 female) who underwent imaging with abdominal MRI or contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT were identified. Patients with known pancreaticobiliary pathology that may confound biliary ductal measurements were excluded. Blinded interpretation was performed, documenting the diameters of the intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile ducts and pancreatic ducts. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: Patients on MMT demonstrated increased bile duct diameter, with an average increase in duct diameter of 2.39 mm for the common bile duct (p < 0.001; 95% CI 1.88-2.90 mm), 1.43 mm for the intrahepatic bile ducts (p < 0.001; 95% CI 1.12-1.74 mm), and 0.90 mm for the pancreatic duct (p < 0.001; 95% CI 0.64-1.16 mm). No statistically significant correlation was found between ductal diameters and the daily dose of methadone. CONCLUSION: Patients on methadone maintenance therapy demonstrate significantly increased intra- and extrahepatic bile duct and pancreatic duct diameter when compared with controls. There was no correlation between the dose of methadone and ductal diameter.