Nonepithelial Tumors of the Larynx: Single-Institution 13-Year Review with Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation.

Nonepithelial tumors of the larynx are rare and represent a minority of all laryngeal neoplasms. Imaging has an important role in the diagnosis, treatment planning, and surveillance of these entities. However, unfamiliarity with these neoplasms can cause diagnostic difficulties for radiologists, especially because many of the imaging findings are nonspecific. By using a systematic approach based on clinical history, patient age and gender, lesion location, endoscopic results, and specific imaging findings, the differential diagnosis can often be narrowed. These tumors typically affect the submucosal layer, so if a tumor has an intact mucosa at endoscopy, a nonepithelial neoplasm is the most likely diagnosis. Nonepithelial tumors of the larynx can arise from the laryngeal cartilage or muscle or from the surrounding lymphoid tissue or blood vessels. Consequently, imaging findings typically correspond to the specific cell type from which it originated. Recognizing specific features (eg, metaplastic bone formation, macroscopic fat, or enhancement pattern) can often help narrow the differential diagnosis. In addition, identification of noncircumscribed borders of the lesion and invasion of the adjacent structures is key to diagnosis of a malignant process rather than a benign neoplasm. Understanding the pathologic correlation is fundamental to understanding the radiologic manifestations and is ultimately crucial for differentiation of nonepithelial laryngeal neoplasms. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2020.

Readability of Patient Education Materials From RadiologyInfo.org: Has There Been Progress Over the Past 5 Years?

OBJECTIVE. As patients increasingly turn to the Internet for healthcare information, it is imperative that patient educational materials be written at an appropriate readability level. Although RadiologyInfo.org, a patient education library sponsored by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and Radiological Society of North America, was shown in 2012 to be written at levels too high for the average patient to adequately comprehend, it is unclear if there has been progress made in the past 5 years. The purpose of this study was to provide a 5-year update on the readability of patient education materials from RadiologyInfo.org. MATERIALS AND METHODS. All patient education articles available in 2017 from the ACR and RSNA-sponsored RadiologyInfo.org patient education library were reviewed. We assessed each article for readability using 6 quantitative readability scales: the Flesch-Kincaid (FK) grade level, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunnin-Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Automated Readability Index, and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). The number of articles with readability ≤ the 8th grade level (average reading ability of US adults) and the 6th-grade level (NIH-recommended level for patient materials) were determined. RESULTS. 131 patient education articles were reviewed. The mean readability grade level was greater than the 11th grade reading level for all readability scales. None of the articles were written at less than the 8th-grade or the 6th-grade levels. CONCLUSION. Although there has been an increasing awareness of the issue of readability of patient educational materials within the radiological community, the patient educational materials within the ACR and RSNA-sponsored RadiologyInfo.org website are still written at levels too high for the average patient. Future efforts should be made to improve the readability of those patient education materials.

Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging Services are Significant Sources of Medicare Revenue for Highly Reimbursed Nonradiologist Providers.

INTRODUCTION: Nonradiologist providers increasingly perform diagnostic imaging examinations and imaging-guided interventions traditionally performed by radiologists, which have raised concerns regarding appropriate utilization and self-referral. The purpose of this study was to assess the contribution of imaging studies to Medicare reimbursements for highly compensated nonradiologist providers in specialties often performing imaging studies. METHODS: The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database was queried for provider information regarding overall reimbursement for providers in anesthesiology, cardiology, emergency medicine, neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedic surgery, neurology, and vascular surgery. Information regarding imaging studies reported and payment amounts were extracted for the 25 highest-reimbursed providers. Data were analyzed for relative contribution of imaging payments to overall medical Medicare payments. RESULTS: Significant differences between numbers of imaging studies, types of imaging, and payment amounts were noted based on provider specialty (p < 0.001). Highest-reimbursed cardiologists received the greatest percentage of Medicare payments from imaging (18.3%) followed by vascular surgery (11.6%), obstetrics and gynecology (10.9%), orthopedic surgery (9.6%), emergency medicine (8.7%), neurology (7.8%), and anesthesiology (3.2%) providers. Mean imaging payments amongst highly reimbursed nonradiologists were greatest for cardiology ($578,265), vascular surgery ($363,912), and orthopedic surgery ($113,634). Amongst highly reimbursed specialists, most common nonradiologist imaging payments were from ultrasound (45%) and cardiac nuclear medicine studies (40%). CONCLUSIONS: Nonradiologist performed imaging payments comprised substantial proportions of overall Medicare reimbursement for highly reimbursed physicians in several specialties, especially cardiology, vascular surgery, and orthopedic surgery. Further investigation is needed to better understand the wider economic implications of nonradiologist imaging study performance and self-referral beyond the Medicare population.

Comparison of powered drill & manual bone biopsy systems: Does the diagnostic yield justify the cost?

Bone biopsies are traditionally performed using manual drill devices. More recently, powered drill biopsy systems have been developed, ostensibly to improve diagnostic yield. We compare the powered drill biopsy system to traditional manual needle devices on the basis of diagnostic yield, specimen size and material costs. 309 consecutive bone biopsy procedures performed with imaging guidance from a single academic institution were retrospectively reviewed. Specimen diagnostic adequacy, qualitative interpretation of diagnostically inadequate specimens, aggregate specimen volume and material costs were assessed. Econometric analysis was performed to assess the relationship between materials cost and diagnostic yield. Diagnostic yield and average core specimen volume were significantly higher in the powered drill group, with 86% of cases yielding adequate biopsy specimens versus 67% of cases using the manual method. The materials cost associated with the powered drill device was higher than those of any of the manual needle devices with an average difference of $270.19 per case, however, this was offset due to higher diagnostic yield suggesting that the increased diagnostic accuracy achieved by the powered drill does not carry a significant added financial burden. The powered drill bone biopsy system results in a significantly higher yield of diagnostically adequate biopsy specimens compared to traditional manual needles, possibly attributed to larger and more intact obtained core specimen volumes and is more economically viable off-setting the higher cost.

Readability of Spanish-Language Patient Education Materials From RadiologyInfo.org.

PURPOSE: Readability of patient education materials has been linked to health outcomes, and reports on patient education materials in radiology have demonstrated readability levels higher than recommended. Few studies in radiology, however, have assessed patient comprehension of Spanish-language health care educational materials. The purpose of this study was thus to assess the readability of patient education materials written in Spanish from RadiologyInfo.org. METHODS: All patient education materials written in Spanish available in July 2017 from the RadiologyInfo.org patient education library were compiled into a database over a 1-day period. After modification and editing to minimize artificial changes in readability levels, four readability scales were used to assess the texts: the Gilliam-Peña-Mountain scale, the Läsbarhets formula, the rate index formula, and the SOL formula. Readability was compared among scales using analysis of variance, and inter- and intrarater variability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: In total, 134 patient education articles written in Spanish were included from the RadiologyInfo.org patient education library. The mean readability grade level was the 10th grade reading level or higher for all scales (average, 12th grade); only one article was written below the 8th grade level. There was no significant difference in readability level on the basis of readability scale used. CONCLUSIONS: Spanish-language patient educational materials provided at the RadiologyInfo.org website are written at levels too high for the average patient. Future efforts should be made to improve the readability of these patient education materials for English and Spanish speakers alike.

How Does the Current Generation of Medical Students View the Radiology Match?: An Analysis of the AuntMinnie and Student Doctor Network Online Forums.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The AuntMinnie (AM) and the Student Doctor Network (SDN) online forums are popular resources for medical students applying for residency. The purpose of this study was to describe medical student radiology-related posts on AM and SDN to better understand the medical student perspective on the application and Match process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed all posts made on the AM and SDN online forums over 5 consecutive academic years from July 2012 to July 2017. Each thread was organized into one of six major categories. We quantified forum utilization over the past 5 years by the total number of and the most frequently posted and viewed thread topics. RESULTS: We reviewed 2683 total threads with 5,723,909 views. Total number of threads posted and viewed fell by 46% and 63%, respectively, from 2013-2014 to 2014-2015, after which they returned near baseline by 2016-2017, along with an increase in interventional radiology-related posts between 2012-2013 (13%) and 2016-2017 (32%) (P < .001). The most common application-related topics were preapplication and program ranking advice (20% of all threads and views). Many posts were related to postinterview communication with residency programs (2% of all threads and views). CONCLUSIONS: After a drop in 2013-2014, utilization of AM and SDN increased in 2016-2017, along with increased interest in interventional radiology. Addressing the student concerns identified in our study, especially in preparing residency applications, ranking programs, and navigating difficult situations, such as postinterview program communication, may improve the radiology application process for future medical students and their advisors.