Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Breast Imaging: An Analysis of the National Mammography Database.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify the initial decline and subsequent rebound in breast cancer screening metrics throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Screening and diagnostic mammographic examinations, biopsies performed, and cancer diagnoses were extracted from the ACR National Mammography Database from March 1, 2019, through May 31, 2021. Patient (race and age) and facility (regional location, community type, and facility type) demographics were collected. Three time periods were used for analysis: pre-COVID-19 (March 1, 2019, to May 31, 2019), peak COVID-19 (March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020), and COVID-19 recovery (March 1, 2021, to May 31, 2021). Analysis was performed at the facility level and overall between time periods. RESULTS: In total, 5,633,783 screening mammographic studies, 1,282,374 diagnostic mammographic studies, 231,390 biopsies, and 69,657 cancer diagnoses were analyzed. All peak COVID-19 metrics were less than pre-COVID-19 volumes: 36.3% of pre-COVID-19 for screening mammography, 57.9% for diagnostic mammography, 47.3% for biopsies, and 48.7% for cancer diagnoses. There was some rebound during COVID-19 recovery as a percentage of pre-COVID-19 volumes: 85.3% of pre-COVID-19 for screening mammography, 97.8% for diagnostic mammography, 91.5% for biopsies, and 92.0% for cancer diagnoses. Across various metrics, there was a disproportionate negative impact on older women, Asian women, facilities in the Northeast, and facilities affiliated with academic medical centers. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had the greatest impact on screening mammography volumes, which have not returned to pre-COVID-19 levels. Cancer diagnoses declined significantly in the acute phase and have not fully rebounded, emphasizing the need to increase outreach efforts directed at specific patient population and facility types.

Geographic Trends in Publications and Submissions in Radiology Journals: Decade Report (2010 - 2020).

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: The Radiology Research Alliance (RRA) of the Association of University Radiologists (AUR) organized a task force to quantify geographic changes in submissions to and publications within radiology journals over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty journals were selected: 7 US-based general, 4 European-based general, and 9 subspecialty radiology journals. Journals were solicited for submissions and publications based on country of origin from 2010 -2020. Regression models assessed changes over time across countries, and by continent, with an emphasis on the US and China, for each journal category. RESULTS: There were 104,679 publications and 92,446 submissions from 149 countries. Overall, there were significant increases in numbers of publications from Asia (R2 = 0.66, p <0.01), and specifically, China (R2 = 0.87, p <0.01). For US journals, there were increased numbers of publications from Asia (R2 = 0.72, p <0.01) and China (R2 = 0.98, p <0.01), but decreased numbers from North America (R2 = 0.41, p = 0.03). For European journals, there were increased numbers of publications from Asia (R2 = 0.79, p <0.01), North America (R2 = 0.75, p <0.01), and China (R2 = 0.82, p <0.01). For subspecialty journals, there were increased numbers of publications from North America (R2 = 0.38, p = 0.04) and China (R2 = 0.73, p <0.01). There was an acute COVID spike in submissions during 2020, with a continuous increase most notable in China (R2 = 0.96, p <0.01). CONCLUSION: In the last decade, the numbers of submissions to and publications within general and subspecialty US and European radiology journals have generally increased around the world, with the largest growth in Asia and in particular China.

Should Radiology Residency Interviews Remain Virtual? Results of a Multi-institutional Survey Inform the Debate.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The recent completion of the inaugural virtual interview season has triggered calls for the permanency of virtual interviews in the radiology resident selection process. We designed a study to assess the inaugural 2020-2021 virtual interview season and inform the anticipated debate on the future of radiology residency interviews. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four and 39-question survey instruments developed for program directors (PDs) and applicants, respectively, were distributed through the Radiology Residency Education Research Alliance to measure the demographics, experiences with technology, attitudes toward the virtual interview season and attitudes about proposed changes to the interview process. Comparisons were made between demographics and survey queries. RESULTS: PD and applicant response rates were 74% (25/34) and 45% (84/186), respectively. Eighty percent (20/25) of PDs and 76% (64/84) of applicants described the virtual interview season as excellent or very good. Sixty percent of PDs agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "The benefits of the virtual interview season outweighed the drawbacks," while 24% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 16% were neutral. Among applicants, 80% agreed or strongly agreed, 10% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 10% were neutral toward the same statement. Ninety-two percent of PDs noted that their rank order list performed the same or better than in years prior. Both PDs and applicants identified applicant equity and wellness as major benefits of virtual interviews, while identifying over-application and interview hoarding as significant detriments. CONCLUSION: The virtual interview provides an adequate substitute for the conventional in-person residency interview, with real and perceived benefits to applicant wellness, equity, and financial well-being. The downsides of virtual interviews, namely over-application and interview hoarding, have workable solutions.

Radiology Stereotypes, Application Barriers, and Hospital Integration: A Mixed-methods Study of Medical Student Perceptions of Radiology.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Limited exposure to radiology by medical students can perpetuate negative stereotypes and hamper recruitment efforts. The purpose of this study is to understand medical students' perceptions of radiology and how they change based on medical education and exposure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-institution mixed-methods study included four groups of medical students with different levels of radiology exposure. All participants completed a 16-item survey regarding demographics, opinions of radiology, and perception of radiology stereotypes. Ten focus groups were administered to probe perceptions of radiology. Focus groups were coded to identify specific themes in conjunction with the survey results. RESULTS: Forty-nine participants were included. Forty-two percent of participants had positive opinions of radiology. Multiple radiology stereotypes were identified, and false stereotypes were diminished with increased radiology exposure. Opinions of the impact of artificial intelligence on radiology closely aligned with positive or negative views of the field overall. Multiple barriers to applying for a radiology residency position were identified including board scores and lack of mentorship. COVID-19 did not affect perceptions of radiology. There was broad agreement that students do not enter medical school with many preconceived notions of radiology, but that subsequent exposure was generally positive. Exposure both solidified and eliminated various stereotypes. Finally, there was general agreement that radiology is integral to the health system with broad exposure on all services. CONCLUSION: Medical student perceptions of radiology are notably influenced by exposure and radiology programs should take active steps to engage in medical student education.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Breast Imaging Education.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast imaging education. METHODS: A 22-item survey addressing four themes during the early pandemic (time on service, structured education, clinical training, future plans) was emailed to Society of Breast Imaging members and members-in-training in July 2020. Responses were compared using McNemar's and Mann-Whitney U tests; a general linear model was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Of 136 responses (136/2824, 4.8%), 96 U.S. responses from radiologists with trainees, residents, and fellows were included. Clinical exposure declined during the early pandemic, with almost no medical students on service (66/67, 99%) and fewer clinical days for residents (78/89, 88%) and fellows (48/68, 71%). Conferences shifted to remote live format (57/78, 73%), with some canceled (15/78, 19%). Compared to pre-pandemic, resident diagnostic (75/78, 96% vs 26/78, 33%) (P < 0.001) and procedural (73/78, 94% vs 21/78, 27%) (P < 0.001) participation fell, as did fellow diagnostic (60/61, 98% vs 47/61, 77%) (P = 0.001) and procedural (60/61, 98% vs 43/61, 70%) (P < 0.001) participation. Most thought that the pandemic negatively influenced resident and fellow screening (64/77, 83% and 43/60, 72%, respectively), diagnostic (66/77, 86% and 37/60, 62%), and procedural (71/77, 92% and 37/61, 61%) education. However, a majority thought that decreased time on service (36/67, 54%) and patient contact (46/79, 58%) would not change residents' pursuit of a breast imaging fellowship. CONCLUSION: The pandemic has had a largely negative impact on breast imaging education, with reduction in exposure to all aspects of breast imaging. However, this may not affect career decisions.

COVID-19 and Breast Radiologist Wellness: Impact of Gender, Financial Loss, and Childcare Need.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the emotional and financial impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on breast radiologists to understand potential consequences on physician wellness and gender disparities in radiology. METHODS: A 41-question survey was distributed from June to September 2020 to members of the Society of Breast Imaging and the National Consortium of Breast Centers. Psychological distress and financial loss scores were calculated on the basis of survey responses and compared across gender and age subgroups. A multivariate logistic model was used to identify factors associated with psychological distress scores. RESULTS: A total of 628 surveys were completed (18% response rate); the mean respondent age was 52 ± 10 years, and 79% were women. Anxiety was reported by 68% of respondents, followed by sadness (41%), sleep problems (36%), anger (25%), and depression (23%). A higher psychological distress score correlated with female gender (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; P = .001), younger age (OR, 0.8 per SD; P = .005), and a higher financial loss score (OR, 1.4; P < .0001). Participants whose practices had not initiated wellness efforts specific to COVID-19 (54%) had higher psychological distress scores (OR, 1.4; P = .03). Of those with children at home, 38% reported increased childcare needs, higher in women than men (40% versus 29%, P < .001). Thirty-seven percent reported that childcare needs had adversely affected their jobs, which correlated with higher psychological distress scores (OR, 2.2-3.3; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress was highest among younger and female respondents and those with greater pandemic-specific childcare needs and financial loss. Practice-initiated COVID-19-specific wellness efforts were associated with decreased psychological distress. Policies are needed to mitigate pandemic-specific burnout and worsening gender disparities.