Search

Objective: There is a paucity of utility and cost data regarding the launch of 3D printing in a hospital. The objective of this project is to benchmark utility and costs for radiology-based in-hospital 3D printing of anatomic models in a single, adult academic hospital., Methods: All consecutive patients for whom 3D printed anatomic models were requested during the first year of operation were included. All 3D printing activities were documented by the 3D printing faculty and referring specialists. For patients who underwent a procedure informed by 3D printing, clinical utility was determined by the specialist who requested the model. A new metric for utility termed Anatomic Model Utility Points with range 0 (lowest utility) to 500 (highest utility) was derived from the specialist answers to Likert statements. Costs expressed in United States dollars were tallied from all 3D printing human resources and overhead. Total costs, focused costs, and outsourced costs were estimated. The specialist estimated the procedure room time saved from the 3D printed model. The time saved was converted to dollars using hospital procedure room costs., Results: The 78 patients referred for 3D printed anatomic models included 11 clinical indications. For the 68 patients who had a procedure, the anatomic model utility points had an overall mean (SD) of 312 (57) per patient (range, 200-450 points). The total operation cost was $213,450. The total cost, focused costs, and outsourced costs were $2,737, $2,180, and $2,467 per model, respectively. Estimated procedure time saved had a mean (SD) of 29.9 (12.1) min (range, 0-60 min). The hospital procedure room cost per minute was $97 (theoretical $2,900 per patient saved with model)., Discussion: Utility and cost benchmarks for anatomic models 3D printed in a hospital can inform health care budgets. Realizing pecuniary benefit from the procedure time saved requires future research., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Radiology. All rights reserved.)

Background: Equity, diversity, and inclusion in academic radiology are a work in progress and although the gender gap has decreased, there remains a paucity of studies examining female representation among radiology trainees over the past decade., Objective: The aim of our undertaking was to evaluate gender parity in United States (US) and Canadian radiology residency programs and to suggest future directions to improve female representation MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of publicly available data on radiology residents from the US and Canada was performed from 2007to 2019. Data on diagnostic radiology residents was collected from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for the US and the Canadian Post M.D. Education Registry for Canada. Statistical tests including regression and ANOVA were used to study the gender proportions from 2007to 2019., Results: There has been little progress in bridging the gender gap in the last 12 years. The proportion of female residents pursuing radiology has remained at an average of 26.74% (n = 1,238of 4,629) in US programs and 31.78% (n = 28 of88) in Canadian programs. The average change in the percentage of female residents was 0.0% per year (P = 0.0) for US programs and -2.9% per year (P = 0.3) for Canadian programs., Discussion: Despite a higher proportion of females in North American medical schools, gender disparity persists among radiology residents. More research is needed to identify barriers limiting female representation and improve gender parity across North American radiology programs., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The transition from trainee to newly minted breast radiologist is exciting and daunting in equal measure. The early years in practice are pivotal to long-term success in breast imaging whether entering academic or nonacademic practice. Yet a paucity of literature exists to guide junior radiologists in their early career transition. New breast radiologists can successfully navigate the start of a prosperous and enriching career by implementing strategies adapted from the business world and collective wisdom from the radiology world. This article provides an outline of tips and habits for new radiologists to incorporate in their work lives as attendings to ensure that they will thrive in breast imaging for years to come., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose The objectives of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Patient-Centered Radiology Steering Committee survey were to (a) assess RSNA members' general attitudes and experiences concerning patient-centered radiology, with specific attention paid to radiologist-to-patient communication; (b) examine the members' barriers to communicating more directly with patients; and (c) explore their perceptions of how such barriers can be overcome. Materials and Methods A total of 5999 radiologists were invited by e-mail to complete an anonymous electronic survey developed by the Steering Committee and the RSNA Department of Research. Participants were asked to identify aspects of patient-centered care important to their practice, report on their interactions with patients, and share their opinions on radiologist-patient communication. Statistical analyses were performed by using the χ 2 test and analysis of variance. Results The response rate was 12% (n = 694, 109 invitations were undeliverable). Most respondents (89%, 611 of 684) agreed that promoting awareness of the role of radiology in patients' overall health care is important to how they practice. The majority (73%, 421 of 575) reported that time or workload frequently prevented them from communicating directly with patients. The majority (74%, 423 of 572) reported that a personal sense of satisfaction was likely to motivate them to communicate more directly with patients, but many commented that changes to reimbursement and compensation would help them communicate with patients more directly. Conclusion Many radiologists support the concept of communicating more directly with patients but report they are constrained by time or workload. Changes to reimbursement schemes may help mitigate these barriers to one crucial aspect of patient-centered care. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

A palpable breast mass is one of the most common presenting features of breast carcinoma. However, the clinical features are frequently nonspecific. Imaging performed before biopsy is helpful in characterizing the nature of the mass. For women with clinically detected breast masses, the vast majority will require evaluation with ultrasound. Diagnostic mammography is the initial imaging modality of choice for women aged ≥ 40 years; ultrasound is typically necessary unless a definitively benign mass is identified as the etiology of the clinical finding. For evaluating women aged <30 years and women who are pregnant or lactating, ultrasound is used for initial evaluation. For women aged 30 to 39 years, either ultrasound or diagnostic mammography may be used for initial evaluation. MRI is rarely indicated to evaluate a clinically detected finding. Biopsy is indicated for masses with suspicious features. Short-term follow-up is a reasonable alternative to biopsy for solid masses with probably benign features suggesting fibroadenoma. Correlation between imaging and the clinical finding is essential. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria ® are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Women newly diagnosed with stage 1 breast cancer have an early-stage disease that can be effectively treated. Evidence provides little justification for performing imaging to exclude metastasis in asymptomatic women with stage I breast cancer. No differences have been found in survival or quality of life in women regardless of whether they underwent initial workup for metastatic disease. These women generally prefer intensive follow-up to detect an early recurrence. However, survival rates do not differ between women who obtain intensive screening and surveillance, with imaging and laboratory studies, and women who undergo testing only as a result of development of symptoms or findings on clinical examinations. In addition, quality of life is similar for women who undergo intensive surveillance compared with those who do not. American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that annual mammography is the only imaging examination that should be performed to detect a localized breast recurrence in asymptomatic patients. Additional imaging may be needed if the patient has locoregional symptoms. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review by the panel include extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. When evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A palpable breast mass is one of the most common presenting features of breast carcinoma. However, the clinical features are frequently nonspecific. Imaging performed before biopsy is helpful in characterizing the nature of the mass. For women with clinically detected breast masses, the vast majority will require evaluation with ultrasound. Diagnostic mammography is the initial imaging modality of choice for women aged ≥ 40 years; ultrasound is typically necessary unless a definitively benign mass is identified as the etiology of the clinical finding. For evaluating women aged <30 years and women who are pregnant or lactating, ultrasound is used for initial evaluation. For women aged 30 to 39 years, either ultrasound or diagnostic mammography may be used for initial evaluation. MRI is rarely indicated to evaluate a clinically detected finding. Biopsy is indicated for masses with suspicious features. Short-term follow-up is a reasonable alternative to biopsy for solid masses with probably benign features suggesting fibroadenoma. Correlation between imaging and the clinical finding is essential. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria(®) are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In 1999, the American Board of Radiology (ABR) implemented an innovative training program track in diagnostic radiology (DR) and radiation oncology (RO) designed to stimulate development of a cadre of future academic researchers and educators in the 2 disciplines. The program was designated the Holman Research Pathway (HRP). An in-depth retrospective review of initial certification examination performance, post-training career choices, and academic productivity has not been written. This report represents a 10-year retrospective review of post-training performance of a cohort of trainees who have had sufficient time to complete their training and initial certification process and to enter practice., Methods and Materials: All pertinent proceedings of the ABR and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Residency Review Committees for DR and RO between 1997 and May 2011 were reviewed. Thirty-four HRP candidates who fulfilled the established evaluation criteria were identified, and their ABR data files were analyzed regarding performance on the qualifying and certifying examinations. All candidates were contacted directly to obtain a current curriculum vitae., Results: Twenty candidates in RO and 14 candidates in DR were identifiable for review. All candidates attained initial certification. At the time of analysis, 23 of 33 (66.6%) candidates were employed in full-time academic practice (1 DR candidate remained in a fellowship and was not evaluated regarding employment status). Fifteen of 20 (75%) RO candidates were in faculty positions compared with 7 of 13 (53.8%) DR trainees. Additional academic productivity metrics are reported., Conclusions: A high percentage of HRP trainees remained in academic practice and demonstrated significant academic productivity as measured by manuscript authorship and research support. Additional time and observation will be needed to determine whether these findings will be sustained by past, current, and future HRP trainees., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Stage I breast carcinoma is classified when an invasive breast carcinoma is ≤2 cm in diameter (T1), with no regional (axillary) lymph node metastases (N0) and no distant metastases (M0). The most common sites for metastases from breast cancer are the skeleton, lung, liver, and brain. In general, women and health care professionals prefer intensive screening and surveillance after a diagnosis of breast cancer. Screening protocols include conventional imaging such as chest radiography, bone scan, ultrasound of the liver, and MRI of brain. It is uncertain whether PET/CT will serve as a replacement for current imaging technologies. However, there are no survival or quality-of-life differences for women who undergo intensive screening and surveillance after a diagnosis of stage I breast carcinoma compared with those who do not. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria(®) are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)