Efficacy of TIPS Reduction for Refractory Hepatic Encephalopathy, Right Heart Failure, and Liver Dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine clinical outcomes of patients undergoing TIPS reduction. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, all TIPS reductions performed at two institutions from January 1, 2008 to January 31, 2016, were retrospectively identified. Patients were divided into two groups according to pre-TIPS symptoms: volume overload due to ascites or hydrothorax (VO; n = 14) or variceal bleeding (VB; n = 12). Patient demographics, pre-TIPS model for end-stage liver disease score, pre- and post-TIPS portosystemic gradients, and clinical parameters were recorded. The primary endpoint was change in symptoms of hepatic encephalopathy (HE; West Haven criteria), right heart failure, or liver dysfunction. Secondary endpoints included paracentesis rate for the VO group and rebleeding for the VB group. RESULTS. The degree of HE increased in 24 of 26 patients (92%) after TIPS placement and decreased in 24 of 26 patients (92%) after TIPS reduction. Mean West Haven scores for the VO group decreased after TIPS reduction (from 2.57 ± 0.97 [SD] to 1.07 ± 0.70; p < .001). Mean West Haven scores for the VB group also decreased after TIPS reduction (from 2.45 ± 0.89 to 1.27 ± 0.86; p = .007). Right heart failure improved in two of three patients (67%), and total bilirubin improved in one of three patients (33%). Follow-up data were available up to median of 134 days (interquartile range, 44-286). TIPS reduction led to an increased paracentesis rate compared with before TIPS placement in four of 14 patients with VO (29%). One patient had a stable paracentesis rate after TIPS reduction compared with before TIPS placement. Variceal rebleeding did not occur in any patients with VB after TIPS reduction. At 54 days after TIPS reduction, one of the 12 patients with VB (9%) experienced hematemesis due to an endoscopically proven band-related ulcer. CONCLUSION. TIPS reduction successfully resolved HE and refractory right heart failure in most patients. In patients with VB, TIPS reduction with variceal embolization results in a low risk of short-term recurrent VB. However, in patients with VO, ascites may return or worsen after TIPS reduction despite improvement in HE.

A Case of Granulocytic Sarcoma or Extramedullary Acute Myelomonocytic Leukemia of the Gallbladder.

BACKGROUND Granulocytic sarcoma, or 'chloroma,' due to extramedullary acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or due to acute myelomonocytic leukemia (AML M5), is rare and is associated with a poor prognosis. This report is of a case of granulocytic sarcoma of the gallbladder and describes the approach to diagnosis and treatment. CASE REPORT A 74-year-old Hispanic woman from Ecuador presented to the emergency department with a five-day history of fever, jaundice, and right upper quadrant abdominal pain. The right upper quadrant ultrasound showed a thickened gallbladder wall with cholelithiasis, a positive sonographic Murphy sign, and marked dilatation of the common bile duct, which was up to 17 mm in diameter. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) showed purulence and a stone in the common bile duct, which was removed. She underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy which identified gangrenous cholecystitis. Despite cholecystectomy and treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics, she remained febrile with a leukocytosis of up to 80,000 cells/µL. Histopathology of the gallbladder showed infiltrating myeloblasts within the mucosa, submucosa, and muscularis consistent with a granulocytic sarcoma associated with gangrenous cholecystitis due to cholelithiasis. Immunohistochemistry, using a panel of antibodies to CD33, CD68, HLA-DR, and lysozyme, supported the diagnosis of granulocytic sarcoma or extramedullary acute myelomonocytic leukemia (AML M5). CONCLUSIONS A rare case of an extramedullary hematologic malignancy, granulocytic sarcoma of the gallbladder is presented, which highlights the importance of timely diagnosis and treatment, due to the high mortality rate associated with granulocytic sarcoma, or extramedullary AML.

Radiology Reporting: Current Practices and an Introduction to Patient-Centered Opportunities for Improvement.

OBJECTIVE: As health care evolves, the radiology report must also change to satisfy referring physician and patient expectations. Knowledge of the issues and controversies regarding a patient-centered approach to reporting practices is important. This article will aid the radiologist in this endeavor by summarizing key facets of radiology reporting, including current reporting standards and emerging patient-centered concepts in report language, formatting, and delivery. CONCLUSION: Future efforts to improve radiology reporting practices need to account for the needs of an increasingly heterogeneous audience that includes patients. Radiologists must exploit information technologies to craft and deliver meaningful patient-centered reports. A modern radiology report will be a powerful, flexible document that strengthens the connection between the radiologist and the patient.

JOURNAL CLUB: Structured Feedback From Patients on Actual Radiology Reports: A Novel Approach to Improve Reporting Practices.

OBJECTIVE: Patient perceptions of radiology reports are largely unknown. The objective of the present study is to describe our experience receiving structured feedback from patients on actual radiology reports as a means of improving reporting practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight reports (two for radiographs, two for ultrasound images, two for CT scans, and two for MR images) were randomly selected from our system for review. For each report, patients were asked to rate their level of comprehension, identify any problems in the report, and, in the free-text portion of the feedback form, indicate any questions about the report that they may have. Potentially confounding factors were also examined. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients (46 men and 58 women) participated in the study (for a total of 832 evaluations). The median score for report comprehension was 2.5 (on a scale of 1-5), with the most common problems affecting comprehension identified as "unclear or technical language" (mentioned in 59.6% of evaluations) and the report being "too long" (mentioned in 10.2% of evaluations). A request for an explanation of the report in lay terms (noted in 20.1% of evaluations) was the most common request mentioned in the free-text portion of the feedback form. An inverse relationship existed between report length and patient comprehension (p < 0.001). Patients who had prior experience with their own radiology reports indicated having greater comprehension than did patients with no prior experience (p = 0.003). No correlation between the educational status and report comprehension of the patients was identified (p = 0.488). CONCLUSION: Radiology reports are not well understood by patients, who identify technical language and the long length of reports as the most common problems affecting their comprehension. Longer reports tend to be less well understood.

Screening Mammography: Patient Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Communication of Estimated Breast Cancer Risk.

OBJECTIVE: Many models exist to estimate a woman's risk of development of breast cancer. At screening mammography, many imaging centers collect data required for these models to identify women who may benefit from supplemental screening and referral for cancer risk assessment. The purpose of this study was to discern perceptions and preferences of screening mammography patients regarding communication of estimated breast cancer risk. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed to screening and surveillance mammography patients between April and June 2015. Survey questions were designed to assess patient preferences regarding the receipt and complexity of risk estimate communication, including hypothetical scenarios with and without > 20% estimated risk of breast cancer. The McNemar test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test were used with p ≤ 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 1061 screening and surveillance mammography patients, and 503 patients responded (response rate, 47%). Although 86% (431/503) of patients expressed interest in learning their estimated risk, only 8% (38/503) had undergone formal risk assessment. The preferred method (241 respondents [26%]) of communication of risk < 20% was a mailed letter accompanying annual mammogram results. For risk > 20%, patients preferred oral communication and were 10-fold as likely to choose only oral communication (p < 0.000001). For risk < 20% and > 20%, patients preferred to learn their estimated risk in great detail (69% and 85%), although women were significantly more likely to choose greater detail for risk > 20% (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: Screening mammography patients expressed interest in learning their estimated risk of breast cancer regardless of their level of hypothetical risk.

Report of the ACR's Economics Committee on Value-Based Payment Models.

A major outcome of the current health care reform process is the move away from unrestricted fee-for-service payment models toward those that are based on the delivery of better patient value and outcomes. The authors' purpose, therefore, is to critically evaluate and define those components of the overall imaging enterprise that deliver meaningful value to both patients and referrers and to determine how these components might be measured and quantified. These metrics might then be used to lobby providers and payers for sustainable payment solutions for radiologists and radiology services. The authors evaluated radiology operations and services using the framework of the imaging value chain, which divides radiology service into a number of discrete value-added activities, which ultimately deliver the primary product, most often the actionable report for diagnostic imaging or an effective outcome for interventional radiology. These value activities include scheduling and imaging appropriateness and stewardship, patient preparation, protocol design, modality operations, reporting, report communication, and clinical follow-up (eg, mammography reminder letters). Two further categories are hospital or health care organization citizenship and examination outcome. Each is discussed in turn, with specific activities highlighted.

Differing Interpretations of Report Terminology Between Primary Care Physicians and Radiologists.

PURPOSE: The lexicons of the radiologist and the referring physician may not be synonymous, which could cause confusion with radiology reporting. To further explore this possibility, we surveyed radiologists and primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding their respective interpretations of report terminology. METHODS: A survey was distributed to radiologists and PCPs through an internal listserv. Respondents were asked to provide an interpretation of the statistical likelihood of the presence of metastatic disease based upon the terminology used within a hypothetical radiology report. Ten common modifying terms were evaluated. Potential responses for the statistical likelihoods included 0%-25%, 26%-50%, 51%-75%, 76%-99%, and 100%. Differences between the groups were evaluated using either a χ2 test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. RESULTS: The phrases "diagnostic for metastatic disease" and "represents metastatic disease" were selected by a high percentage of both groups as conferring a 100% likelihood of "true metastatic disease." The phrases "cannot exclude metastatic disease" and "may represent metastatic disease" were selected by a high proportion of both groups as conferring a 0% likelihood of "true metastatic disease." Radiologists assigned a higher statistical likelihood to the terms "diagnostic for metastatic disease" (P = .016), "represents metastatic disease" (P = .004), "suspicious for metastatic disease" (P = .04), "consistent with metastatic disease" (P < .0001), and "compatible with metastatic disease" (P = .003). CONCLUSION: A qualitative agreement among radiologists and PCPs exists concerning the significance of the evaluated terminology, although radiologists assigned a higher statistical likelihood than PCPs for several phrases.

Creating a Patient-Centered Radiology Practice Through the Establishment of a Diagnostic Radiology Consultation Clinic.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to assess the feasibility of and to create a referral mechanism for a diagnostic radiology consultation clinic. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A pilot program was instituted with patients from a single primary care clinic over a 3-week period. Patients with findings of common problems at routine imaging, such as atherosclerosis, emphysema, and hepatic steatosis, were eligible to participate. As the patients arrived for their routine primary care visits, office staff informed them of the opportunity to formally meet with a radiologist to review their most recent imaging findings. The office staff of the primary care clinic then contacted the radiologist covering the diagnostic radiology consultation clinic to schedule a consultation. A survey was administered before and after the session. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients participated (88% participation rate). Participants rated the consultation as very helpful (mean, 4.8 on 1-5 scale), and all participants would take the opportunity to review studies with the radiologist again. Significantly more patients preferred the involvement of the radiologist in communicating the results of an imaging examination after the consultation compared with before the consultation (p = 0.001). After the consultation session, patients had significantly improved understanding of a radiologist's role (p = 0.004), and all participants were able to correctly identify the radiologist as a physician who interprets medical images. CONCLUSION: A referral mechanism for a diagnostic radiology consultation clinic can be effectively integrated into the everyday workflow of both the referring physician and the radiologist. The consultations are useful to patients and help to increase their awareness of the role of the radiologist.

Rethinking the role of the radiologist: enhancing visibility through both traditional and nontraditional reporting practices.

The written radiology report is the primary method by which the radiologist communicates examination findings to the referring physician and the patient. Unfortunately, despite recent efforts to improve radiology reporting practices, dissatisfaction with regard to traditional reporting practices continues among referring physicians and patients. Moreover, the current reporting paradigm limits the amount of interaction that radiologists can have with patients and referring physicians. To address these issues, organizational efforts have been made by the Radiological Society of North America and the American College of Radiology to educate the public about the role of the radiologist in patient care, provide resources for individuals to learn more about the practice of radiology, and assist radiologists in creating a more "patient-centered" practice. In addition, individual radiologists may want to consider making adjustments to their reporting practices to improve communication of examination findings and increase patient awareness of the radiologist's role in clinical care. Many opportunities exist for radiologists to make such changes, both within the traditional reporting model (decreasing barriers to communication, educating patients) and with implementation of various nontraditional reporting practices (eg, delivering examination results directly to patients, receiving structured feedback on reports, establishing a diagnostic radiology consultation clinic). The authors provide guidance for radiologists who wish to enhance their visibility in clinical care with use of both traditional and nontraditional reporting practices.

Radiologists' role in the communication of imaging examination results to patients: perceptions and preferences of patients.

OBJECTIVE: It has been suggested that radiology reporting practices would be improved if radiologists were to discuss the results of an examination directly with the patient. The attitudes and preferences of patients with regard to direct communication with the radiologist are not well-defined. The purpose of this study was to survey patients about their preferred method of receiving radiologic results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed to adult patients undergoing contrast-enhanced CT or MRI over a 2-week period in June 2013. RESULTS: The response rate was 58.4% (642 responses). For normal examination results, the preferred mode of communication was a telephone call from the ordering physician (34.1%); only 12% of respondents opted for a telephone call from the radiologist, and 2.6% chose a face-to-face meeting with the radiologist. For abnormal test results, the preferred mode of communication was also a telephone call from the ordering physician (49.8%); 14.4% of respondents selected a telephone call from the radiologist, and 8.3% chose a face-to-face meeting with the radiologist. Patients preferred receiving very detailed versions of radiology reports for both normal (46.4%) and abnormal (81.8%) test results. Patients also expressed a desire to have access to at least key images from their examinations. CONCLUSION: Patients prefer receiving both normal and abnormal examination results from the physicians who ordered the examination rather than the radiologist. They also prefer to receive very detailed examination results rather than a brief summary in lay terms.

Pulmonary pathology of rapidly fatal transfusion-related acute lung injury reveals minimal evidence of diffuse alveolar damage or alveolar granulocyte infiltration.

BACKGROUND: Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) is the leading cause of transfusion-associated death in the United States. Its diagnosis is based on clinical and radiographic changes that are indistinguishable from acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS). TRALI is presumed to be a form of ALI/ARDS; however, it differs in its triggering events and associated mortality. Two cases of rapidly fatal TRALI in which the postmortem pathology differed from that classically associated with ALI/ARDS are reported. CASE REPORT: Two men (aged 75 and 83 years) developed rapidly fatal TRALI after receiving single units of plasma for correction of elevated international normalized ratios. The donors were found to have white blood cell (WBC) antibodies that included specificities for WBC antigens expressed by the recipient (HLA Class I or Class II and/or HNA-3b [5a] antibody). Autopsy findings in both patients revealed bilateral pleural effusions and extensive patchy areas of alveoli filled with proteinaceous fluid. The pulmonary capillaries were congested with red blood cells and WBCs. Diffuse alveolar damage, including interstitial inflammation, intraalveolar granulocyte infiltration, and hyaline membrane formation, were not identified in either case. CONCLUSION: In both patients the clinical and radiographic findings were indicative of TRALI and indistinguishable from ALI/ARDS. However, diffuse alveolar damage, the classic autopsy finding in ARDS, was not identified, suggesting a different pathogenesis. Further studies are needed on the role of polymorphonuclear cells in the initiating events of TRALI that lead to ALI and the resulting breakdown of the permeability integrity of the alveolar walls.