The Medical Writing Center Model in an Academic Teaching Hospital.

Editing services within academic health centers are uncommon, and few studies have reported on their impact. In this article, we describe our medical writing center's editing service for faculty and trainees at a pediatric teaching hospital and associated outcomes of scholarly products (e.g., manuscripts and grants) over an 8-year period. Data for manuscripts and grant proposals edited by the writing center from 2015 through 2022 were collected electronically from our service request database. Outcome data on publications and grant proposals were regularly collected up to 12 months post-submission. Users were also asked if the writing center edits were helpful, improved readability, and if they planned to use the service in the future. From 2015 through 2022, the writing center received 697 requests, 88.4% to edit a document. Of the documents edited, 81.3% of manuscripts and 44.4% of grant proposals were successfully published or funded. When rating their experience, 97.8% of respondents rated the edits "helpful," 96.7% indicated the edits "improved readability," and 99.3% stated they planned to use the writing center in the future. Our results showed steady use of the writing center and high satisfaction with services. A writing center can be an effective tool to support psychology faculty development.

Automated Breast Ultrasound Interpretation Times: A Reader Performance Study.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the average time for breast radiologists of varied experience to interpret automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A reader performance study was conducted on female patients, with ACR BI-RADS 4 breast density classifications of C or D, who received both an ABUS screening examination and a digital mammogram from 2013 to 2014 at an academic institution. Three faculty breast radiologists with varied levels of ABUS experience (advanced, intermediate, novice) read all ABUS examinations, with interpretation times and final impressions (categorized as "normal" or "abnormal") recorded for each examination. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were included, with all readers demonstrating an average ABUS interpretation time of less than 3 minutes. Compared to the other two readers, the intermediate reader had a significantly longer mean interpretation time at 2.6 minutes (95% confidence interval 2.4-2.8; P < .001). In addition to having the shortest mean interpretation time, the novice reader also demonstrated reduced times in subsequent interpretations, with a significant decrease in interpretation times of 3.1 seconds (95% confidence interval 0.4-5.8) for every 10 ABUS examinations interpreted (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, mean ABUS interpretation time by radiologists of all experience levels was short, at less than 3 minutes per examination, which should not deter radiologists from incorporating ABUS examinations into a busy clinical environment.

Mammography Positioning Standards in the Digital Era: Is the Status Quo Acceptable?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate positioning of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared with film-screen (FS) mammography positioning standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of consecutive patients who underwent screening FFDM in 2010-2012 and DBT in 2012-2013 at an academic institution. Examinations were performed by five experienced technologists who underwent updated standardized positioning training. Positioning criteria were assessed by consensus reads among three breast radiologists and compared with FS mammography data from a 1993 study by Bassett and colleagues. RESULTS: One hundred seventy patients (n = 340 examinations) were analyzed, showing significant differences between FFDM and DBT examinations (p < 0.05) for medial or inferior skin folds (FFDM vs DBT: craniocaudal [CC] view, 16% [n = 56] vs 23% [n = 77]; mediolateral oblique [MLO] view, 35% [n = 118] vs 45% [n = 154]), inclusion of lateral glandular tissue on CC view (FFDM vs DBT, 73% [n = 247] vs 81% [n = 274]), and concave pectoralis muscle shape (FFDM vs DBT, 36% [n = 121] vs 28% [n = 95]). In comparison with Bassett et al. data, all positioning criteria for both FFDM and DBT examinations were significantly different (p < 0.05). The largest differences were found in visualization of the pectoralis muscle on CC views and the inframammary fold on MLO views, inclusion of posterior or lateral glandular tissue, and inclusion of skin folds, with DBT and FFDM more frequently exhibiting all criteria than originally reported Bassett et al. CONCLUSION: DBT and FFDM mammograms more frequently include posterior or lateral tissue, the inframammary fold on MLO views, the pectoralis muscle on CC views, and skin folds than FS mammograms. Inclusion of more breast tissue with newer technologies suggests traditional positioning standards, in conjunction with updated standardized positioning training, are still applicable at the expense of including more skin folds.

Molecular imaging in oncology: (18)F-sodium fluoride PET imaging of osseous metastatic disease.

OBJECTIVE: This literature review details the history, pharmacokinetics, and utility of (18)F-sodium fluoride (Na(18)F) PET/CT in detecting osseous metastases compared with the current standard of care, technetium-99m methylene diphosphonate ((99m)Tc-MDP) bone scintigraphy. Additional discussion highlights solutions to impediments for broader implementation of this modality and insight into the complementary roles of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and Na(18)F PET/CT in oncology imaging, including preliminary data for combined Na(18)F and FDG PET/CT. CONCLUSION: Na(18)F PET/CT is the most comprehensive imaging modality for the evaluation of osseous metastatic disease. Although further data acquisition is necessary to expand cost-benefit analyses of this imaging agent, emerging data reinforce its diagnostic advantage, suggest methods to mitigate impediments to broader utilization of Na(18)F PET/CT, and introduce a potentially viable technique for single-session combined Na(18)F and FDG PET/CT staging of soft-tissue and osseous disease.