Performance of VI-RADS in predicting muscle-invasive bladder cancer after transurethral resection: a single center retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess VIRADS performance and inter-reader agreement for detecting muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) following transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT). METHODS: An IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study from 2016 to 2020 included patients with bladder urothelial carcinoma who underwent MRI after TURBT, and cystectomy within 3 months without post-MRI treatments. Three radiologists blinded to pathology results independently reviewed MR images and assigned a VI-RADS score. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of VI-RADS were assessed for diagnosing MIBC using VI-RADS scores ≥ 3 and ≥ 4. Inter-reader agreement was assessed using Gwet's agreement coefficient (AC) and percent agreement. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 70 patients (mean age, 68 years ± 11 [SD]; range 39-85; 58 men) and included 32/70 (46%) with MIBC at cystectomy. ROC analysis revealed an AUC ranging from 0.67 to 0.77 and no pairwise statistical difference between readers (p-values, 0.06, 0.08, 0.97). Percent sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy for diagnosing MIBC for the three readers ranged from 81.3-93.8, 36.8-55.3, 55.6-60.5, 77.3-87.5, and 62.9-67.1 respectively for VI-RADS score ≥ 3, and 78.1-81.3, 47.4-68.4, 55.6-67.6, 72.0-78.8 and 61.4-72.9 respectively for VI-RADS score ≥ 4. Gwet's AC was 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49,0.78] for VI-RADS score ≥ 3 with 79% agreement [95% CI 72,87] and 0.54 [95%CI 0.38,0.70] for VI-RADS score ≥ 4 with 76% agreement [95% CI 69,84]. VIRADS performance was not statistically different among 31/70 (44%) patients who received treatments prior to MRI (p ≥ 0.16). CONCLUSION: VI-RADS had moderate sensitivity and accuracy but low specificity for detection of MIBC following TURBT, with moderate inter-reader agreement.

Low-grade oncocytic tumor: a review of radiologic and clinical features.

PURPOSE: The 2022 World Health Organization classification of renal neoplasia expanded the spectrum of oncocytic neoplasms to encompass newly established and emerging entities; one of the latter is the low-grade oncocytic tumor (LOT). This study reports the radiologic appearance and clinical behavior of LOT. METHODS: In this IRB-approved, HIPPA-compliant retrospective study, our institution's pathology database was searched for low-grade oncocytic tumors or neoplasms. Patient age, gender, and comorbidities were obtained from a review of electronic medical records, and imaging characteristics of the tumors were assessed through an imaging platform. RESULTS: The pathology database search yielded 14 tumors in 14 patients. Four patients were excluded, as radiologic images were not available in three, and one did not fulfill diagnostic criteria after pathology re-review. The resulting cohort consisted of 10 tumors (median diameter 2.3 cm, range 0.7-5.1) in 10 patients (median age 68 years, range 53-91, six women). All tumors presented as a solitary, well-circumscribed, mass with solid components. All enhanced as much or almost as much as adjacent renal parenchyma; all but one enhanced heterogeneously. None had lymphadenopathy, venous invasion, or metastatic disease at presentation or at clinical follow-up (median, 22.2 months, range 3.4-71.6). Among five tumors undergoing active surveillance, mean increase in size was 0.4 cm/year at imaging follow-up (median 16.7 months, range 8.9-25.4). CONCLUSION: LOT, a recently described pathologic entity in the kidney, can be considered in the differential diagnosis of an avidly and typically heterogeneously enhancing solid renal mass in an adult patient.

Reliability and Management Outcomes Following a Percutaneous Biopsy Diagnosis of Oncocytoma: A 15-year Retrospective Analysis.

Background There is uncertainty in the management of renal masses diagnosed as oncocytomas with image-guided percutaneous biopsy. Purpose To assess the reliability of a diagnosis of oncocytoma based on image-guided percutaneous renal mass biopsy and evaluate patient outcomes following different management strategies. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, image-guided percutaneous biopsy pathology reports from April 2004 to April 2019 were searched for keywords "oncocytoma" and "oncocytic neoplasm" and compared with surgical pathology or repeat biopsy results. Patients with at least 12 months of clinical follow-up and known cause of death were grouped according to management strategies, and disease-specific survival and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC)-free survival were compared. Mass growth rates were calculated with use of a normal linear mixed model. Results The database yielded 160 biopsy reports of 149 renal masses in 139 patients; 149 masses were categorized as oncocytoma (n = 107), likely oncocytoma (n = 12), oncocytic neoplasm (n = 28), and indeterminate with oncocytoma in differential (n = 2). Biopsied masses categorized as oncocytoma or likely oncocytoma were oncocytomas in 16 of 17 masses (94%) based on surgical pathology or repeat biopsy; four of eight masses (50%) categorized as oncocytic neoplasms were low-grade RCCs. Outcome analysis included 121 patients (mean age ± SD, 68 years ± 9.1; 82 men); 80 patients initially underwent active surveillance (11 were later treated), 33 underwent ablation, and eight underwent surgery. Disease-specific survival and metastatic-free survival were 100% after each management strategy (median follow-up, 86.6 months; range, 14.2-207.9 months). Mass growth rate (mean, 1.7 mm per year) showed no evidence of a significant difference among biopsy result categories (P = .37) or initial (P = .84) or final management strategies (P = .11). Conclusion Image-guided percutaneous biopsy diagnosis of renal oncocytoma was reliable. Although some masses diagnosed as oncocytic neoplasms were low-grade renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) at final diagnosis, no patients died of RCC, including those managed with active surveillance. © RSNA, 2023 See also the editorial by Lockhart in this issue.

Integration of a Community Radiology Division into a Subspecialty-Focused Academic Radiology Department.

INTRODUCTION: Assimilate a general radiology division into a subspecialty-focused radiology department at an academic medical center. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved quality improvement initiative was performed at an academic medical centers' subspecialty-focused academic radiology department, aiming to assimilate a general radiology division providing interpretive services for a distributed set of community ambulatory practices. An Oversight Committee charged by the department chair created a charter with unambiguous goal, timelines, clear decision-making, and conflict resolution processes. The Committee assessed the resources and clinical capabilities of the general radiologists, and the anticipated shift in exam volume from the community into subspecialty divisions. Primary outcome, percentage of targeted organ systems-specific interpretations by general radiologists based on assigned subspecialty division, and secondary outcome of report turnaround time (TAT) for all ambulatory exams, were compared before and after sub-specialization. RESULTS: Among 10 general radiologists, 4.5 were assigned to subspecialty divisions; 5.5 continued to cover an independent general radiology practice in a for-profit delivery network. In the 5 months' post-transition, a total 86.6% (11,668/13,477) of reports by the integrated general radiologists were within designated subspecialty divisions vs 23.9% (2,586/10,829) pre-transition (P < 0.01). There was no change in ambulatory radiology report TAT for non-urgent care center (UCC) or UCC exams pre- vs post-integration. DISCUSSION: A quality improvement initiative with unambiguous decision-making and conflict resolution processes incorporated a general radiology practice (radiologists and exams) into a subspecialty-focused academic radiology practice without negatively impacting TAT metrics. Future studies would be needed to assess impact on quality of interpretations.

Early Adoption of a Certainty Scale to Improve Diagnostic Certainty Communication.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the early voluntary adoption of a certainty scale to improve communicating diagnostic certainty in radiology reports. METHODS: This institutional review board-approved study was part of a multifaceted initiative to improve radiology report quality at a tertiary academic hospital. A committee comprised of radiology subspecialty division representatives worked to develop recommendations for communicating varying degrees of diagnostic certainty in radiology reports in the form of a certainty scale, made publicly available online, which specified the terms recommended and the terms to be avoided in radiology reports. Twelve radiologists voluntarily piloted the scale; use was not mandatory. We assessed proportion of recommended terms among all diagnostic certainty terms in the Impression section (primary outcome) of all reports generated by the radiologists. Certainty terms were extracted via natural language processing over a 22-week postintervention period (31,399 reports) and compared with the same 22 calendar weeks 1 year pre-intervention (24,244 reports) using Fisher's exact test and statistical process control charts. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of recommended terms significantly increased from 8,498 of 10,650 (80.0%) pre-intervention to 9,646 of 11,239 (85.8%) postintervention (P < .0001 and by statistical process control). The proportion of recommended terms significantly increased for 8 of 12 radiologists (P < .0005 each), increased insignificantly for 3 radiologists (P > .05), and decreased without significance for 1 radiologist. CONCLUSION: Designing and implementing a certainty scale was associated with increased voluntary use of recommended certainty terms in a small radiologist cohort. Larger-scale interventions will be needed for adoption of the scale across a broad range of radiologists.