Update on Pathologic Conditions, Imaging Findings, Prevention, and Management of Human Papillomavirus-related Neoplasms.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection that proliferates in the squamous epithelium and is the most common source of viral-related neoplasms. Low-risk subtypes (HPV-6 and -11) cause respiratory papillomas (laryngeal, tracheal, and bronchial) and condyloma acuminata of the penis, anus, and perineal region (anogenital warts). High-risk subtypes (HPV-16, -18, -31, and -33) are responsible for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that involves the tongue base, tonsils, posterior pharyngeal wall, and larynx and malignancies of the anogenital region (cancers of the cervix, vagina, vulva, penis, and anal canal). Recent studies have increasingly shown a favorable treatment response and substantial differences in the overall prognosis associated with HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers. Given this fact, oropharyngeal, cervical, and penile SCCs are classified as HPV-associated and HPV-independent cancers in the current World Health Organization classification. Imaging is essential in the early detection, diagnosis, and staging of HPV-associated cancers. Imaging also helps assess treatment response and postoperative complications and is used for long-term surveillance. HPV-associated oropharyngeal SCCs have well-defined borders and solid and cystic nodal metastases at imaging. Updated screening and vaccination guidelines are currently available that have great potential to decrease the overall disease burden and help control this worldwide public health concern. Novel therapeutic strategies, such as immunotherapies, are being explored, and imaging biomarkers that can predict treatment response and prognosis are being investigated; radiologists play a pivotal role in these efforts. ©RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Immobilization during infant fluoroscopy: Pros and cons.

This article explores the practice of immobilization during fluoroscopy procedures for infants, discussing its advantages and disadvantages. The authors examine contrasting policies and thoughts on immobilization across different medical institutions. While some advocate for its routine use to minimize patient motion, enhance imaging quality, and decrease radiation exposure, others question its necessity and raise concerns about patient consent and parental distress. Ethical dilemmas are also discussed regarding patient autonomy and psychological impact on families. The authors advocate for a balanced approach, recognizing the utility of immobilization in certain clinical scenarios while still emphasizing patient-centered care. Ultimately, the article underscores the importance of institutional policies that prioritize both patient safety and ethical principles in pediatric radiology practices.

A call to action; national survey of teaching radiology curriculum to medical students.

Objectives: Radiology and medical imaging are important yet often an underrepresented facet of medical education. Notably, there is concern among radiologists that students do not receive enough radiology exposure and that they struggle to interpret image findings on entering residency. Therefore, this survey aims to identify how medical students perceive the radiology curriculum and to determine gaps in delivery. Material and Methods: Students were recruited from United States (US) medical schools and given a 21-question survey assessing their perception of the radiology curriculum as well as asking about their confidence levels regarding medical imaging. The inclusion criteria were age >18 and enrolled in US medical school. The surveys were completed in April-July 2020 by students across the US. Objective parameters were measured as percentage correct, while subjective parameters used a 4-point Likert scale. Results: A total of 472 medical students across 31 medical schools completed the surveys with a response rate of 69%. Responses represented all class years within medical schools and showed equal distribution among the future career plans. Students responded that didactic lectures were the most common teaching method and that radiologists were their primary teachers during preclinical education. Students were unfamiliar with the American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria with 65% responding they had never heard of it and 33% reporting that they have heard of it but never used it. In assessing students' perceptions of radiology education, 72% of students responded that they received too little, and 28% of students responded, "Just right." <1% of students responded that there was "Too much" radiology in their curriculum. Conclusion: Radiologists are increasing their educational representation in medical school curricula. Despite this, radiology continues to be under-represented with students desiring more exposure to medical imaging. Integrating the student's perceptions with existing curricula suggests that efforts should focus on increasing awareness of which studies are appropriate and teaching students how to systematically interpret an image.

Acing the Fundamentals of Radiology: An Online Series for Medical Students and Interns.

PURPOSE: The current undergraduate radiology education predominantly integrates radiology with other disciplines during preclerkship years and is often taught by nonradiologists. Early exposure to radiology and profound understanding of scientific fundamentals of imaging modalities and techniques are essential for a better understanding and interest in the specialty. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic-related impact on in-person medical education aggravated the need for alternative virtual teaching initiatives to provide essential knowledge to medical students. METHODS: The authors designed an online 7-session course on the principles of imaging modalities for medical students and fresh graduates in the United States and abroad. The course was delivered online and taught by radiologists from different US institutions. Pretests and posttests were delivered before and after each session, respectively, to assess change in knowledge. At the end of the course, a survey was distributed among students to collect their assessment and feedback. RESULTS: A total of 162 students and interns initially enrolled in the program by completing a sign-up interest form. An average of 65 participants attended each live session, with the highest attendance being 93 live attendees. An average of 44 attendees completed both the pretest and posttest for each session. There was a statistically significant increase in posttest scores compared with pretest scores ( P < 0.01) for each session; on average, the posttest scores were 48% higher than the pretest scores. A total of 84 participants answered the end-of-course survey. A total of 11% of the respondents described themselves as first year, 17% as second year, 18% as third year, 21% as fourth year, and 33% as "other." Attendees were enrolled in medical schools across 21 different countries with 35% of the respondents studying medicine in the United States. More than 76% of the respondents stated that they "strongly agree" that the program increased their understanding of radiology, increased their interest in radiology, and would be useful in their clinical practice in the future. Eighty-three percent of the respondents stated that they "strongly agree" that "this course was a worthwhile experience." Particularly, more than 84% of the respondents stated that among the most important components in enhancing their understanding of radiology were "the interpretation of normal imaging" and "interpretation of clinical cases." Ninety-two percent of the respondents stated that "the amount of effort to complete the requirements for this program was just right." Participants were also asked to rate each of the 8 sessions using the following scale: poor = 1 point, fair = 2, good = 3, and excellent = 4. The average rating for all 8 sessions was 3.61 points (SD = 0.55), which translates to 96% of the sessions being rated good or excellent. Eighty percent of the participants reported that the topics presented in the program were "excellent and clinically important to learn," and 20% of the participants reported that the topics presented were "good and somewhat important to learn." The participants were asked to evaluate their confidence regarding basic radiology skills before and after the program using the following scale: not confident at all = 1 point, somewhat confident = 2, moderately confident = 3, and very confident = 4. Figure 2 summarizes the responses of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: An online course to teach the fundamentals of imaging modalities could be delivered through a webinar format to medical students and interns in several countries to address the potential gaps in radiology education, therefore increasing their understanding of the different imaging modalities and their proper use in medicine.

Multidisciplinary Approach in Teaching Diagnostic Radiology to Medical Students: The Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Virtual Educational Model.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of an online multidisciplinary approach for teaching diagnostic radiology to medical students. METHODS: An online 10-session case-based learning course was designed and taught by a multidisciplinary team of radiologists, surgeons, and internists. Session topics included common clinical case scenarios for different systems and were hosted on a videoconferencing platform. Students from six medical schools across Texas enrolled in the course. The effectiveness of each session was evaluated using a pretest-posttest design. Students completed a final survey after the course to evaluate their experience. RESULTS: An average of 108 attended the live sessions, with attendance peaking at 220. On average, 75 students completed both the pretest and posttest of each session. Posttest scores were an average of 46% higher than pretest scores. A total of 109 students completed the final survey; more than 90% of participants agreed that the program was relevant, that its multidisciplinary approach was valuable, and that it increased their knowledge of imaging as a diagnostic tool. Seventy-four percent said that the program increased their interest in radiology. Almost all participants said that the topics presented were thought to be "excellent and clinically important to learn" by most of the students (70%). Participants reported increased confidence in basic radiology skills after completion of the program. CONCLUSIONS: An online multidisciplinary approach can be feasibly implemented to address the radiology education needs of a large number of medical students across a group of medical schools.

The Use of FRAX in Identifying Women Less Than 65 Years Needing Bone Mineral Density Testing.

The purpose of this study is to determine if the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guideline for osteoporosis identifies women under the age of 65 with osteoporosis needing bone mineral density (BMD) testing. If the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) tool fails to identify women under the age of 65 with undiagnosed osteoporosis, then diagnosis and treatment are delayed, potentially leading to increased fractures and morbidity. Another aim of this study is to characterize women under the age of 65 with osteoporosis that FRAX fails to identify and provide descriptive data on our study population. A retrospective chart review was completed between 2012 and 2018. We extracted data for 113 women ≤ 65-years with osteoporosis confirmed by BMD or fractures. Major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) risk calculation without BMD by FRAX of 9.3% or greater (high risk group) was found in 51 (45.1%) of patients. Osteoporosis by T-score < 2.5 was evident in 102 (90%) of patients. Previous osteoporotic fractures were noted in 29 (25.7%) of patients. The average age of women in the high-risk group was 58 years and 55 years in the low-risk group. The sensitivity of FRAX for identifying women with a T-score <-2.5 was 40%. The sensitivity of FRAX for identifying women with a history of fracture was 32%. The sensitivity of FRAX for identifying women with a T-score <-2.5 or identifying women with a history of fracture was 32%. These results demonstrate that the FRAX tool alone (USPSTF recommendation) fails to identify many women under the age of 65 with osteoporosis in need of BMD testing. Over half of women would not have had a BMD performed based on guidelines for screening BMD in women <65. Further study is needed to characterize women under the age of 65 with osteoporosis with a FRAX MOF risk less than 9.3%.