Results of an American College of Radiology-Society of Interventional Radiology Membership Survey on Exclusive Contracts and the Attitudes of Interventional Radiologists.

PURPOSE: To assess the attitudes of interventional radiologists (IRs) and diagnostic radiologists (DRs) toward exclusive contracts and independently practicing IRs who may request privileges at a hospital where an exclusive contract exists with a different group of radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 22,400 survey instruments were distributed to 4,490 IRs and 17,910 DRs in the United States. Statistical evaluation included multivariate ordinal logistic regression analysis with calculation of the odds ratios and forest plots. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 525 (11.69%) IRs and 401 (2.23%) DRs. Given the low response rate of DRs, data analysis was focused on IRs. Early-career IRs and those in outpatient practices had a more positive attitude toward independent IRs who requested admitting and/or procedural privileges. A supermajority of both IRs and DRs who responded to the survey agreed that the importance of IR to hospital and health system contracts will increase. CONCLUSIONS: This survey identified many interrelated and complex variables that significantly affected the attitudes of IRs in various practice settings toward independent IRs requesting hospital admitting and/or procedural privileges. It will benefit independent IRs seeking admitting privileges to better understand some of the factors that impact the potential willingness of the radiology groups and other IRs with exclusive hospital contracts to work toward mutually beneficial practice paradigms, especially as more clinically oriented IRs complete their training in the new, integrated residency programs.

Establishing analytical validity of BeadChip array genotype data by comparison to whole-genome sequence and standard benchmark datasets.

BACKGROUND: Clinical use of genotype data requires high positive predictive value (PPV) and thorough understanding of the genotyping platform characteristics. BeadChip arrays, such as the Global Screening Array (GSA), potentially offer a high-throughput, low-cost clinical screen for known variants. We hypothesize that quality assessment and comparison to whole-genome sequence and benchmark data establish the analytical validity of GSA genotyping. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, we selected 263 samples from Coriell, generated GSA genotypes in triplicate, generated whole genome sequence (rWGS) genotypes, assessed the quality of each set of genotypes, and compared each set of genotypes to each other and to the 1000 Genomes Phase 3 (1KG) genotypes, a performance benchmark. For 59 genes (MAP59), we also performed theoretical and empirical evaluation of variants deemed medically actionable predispositions. RESULTS: Quality analyses detected sample contamination and increased assay failure along the chip margins. Comparison to benchmark data demonstrated that > 82% of the GSA assays had a PPV of 1. GSA assays targeting transitions, genomic regions of high complexity, and common variants performed better than those targeting transversions, regions of low complexity, and rare variants. Comparison of GSA data to rWGS and 1KG data showed > 99% performance across all measured parameters. Consistent with predictions from prior studies, the GSA detection of variation within the MAP59 genes was 3/261. CONCLUSION: We establish the analytical validity of GSA assays using quality analytics and comparison to benchmark and rWGS data. GSA assays meet the standards of a clinical screen although assays interrogating rare variants, transversions, and variants within low-complexity regions require careful evaluation.

What's in a Name? Report of the ACR Task Force on General Radiology and Multi-Subspecialization.

The ACR Council passed Resolution 47 at its 2020 annual meeting establishing a representative task force (TF) to explore the concept of the "multispecialty radiologist," previously proposed in 2012. The TF held eight virtual meetings over 8 months, considered data from a 2020 ACR Membership Tracking Survey, conducted a review of current literature, and collected anecdotal experience from TF members and ACR leadership. ACR legal counsel and a cross-section of ACR Commissions and Committees also provided input. The TF concluded that there is scant interest from the radiology community in the multispecialty radiologist title and no agreed-upon definition for the term. Radiologists may identify as diagnostic or subspecialty radiologists; however, the roles they fill in clinical practice include general, multispecialty, and subspecialized radiology. The TF proposes definitions for each of these terms to support radiologist recruitment aligned with optimal patient care in the practice community and to improve the quality of data collection about the field. To reduce ambiguity, the TF proposes adoption of the defined terms by the radiology community, including radiologist recruiters and employers, and suggests ways in which resident training and the ABR board examination can be adapted to support this new structure. Additionally, as part of an exploration of hyperspecialization and trainee preparedness for clinical practice, the TF discussed the challenges faced by community-based practices seeking to provide a full range of high-quality, radiologist-delivered diagnostic and interventional services to their patient populations.

Interpretations of Examinations Outside of Radiologists' Fellowship Training: Assessment of Discrepancy Rates Among 5.9 Million Examinations From a National Teleradiology Databank.

BACKGROUND. In community settings, radiologists commonly function as multispecialty radiologists, interpreting examinations outside of their area of fellowship training. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to compare discrepancy rates for preliminary interpretations of acute community-setting examinations that are concordant versus discordant with interpreting radiologists' area of fellowship training. METHODS. This retrospective study used the databank of a U.S. teleradiology company that provides preliminary interpretations for client community hospitals. The analysis included 5,883,980 acute examinations performed from 2012 to 2016 that were preliminarily interpreted by 269 teleradiologists with a fellowship of neuroradiology, abdominal radiology, or musculoskeletal radiology. When providing final interpretations, client on-site radiologists voluntarily submitted quality assurance (QA) requests if preliminary and final interpretations were discrepant; the teleradiology company's QA committee categorized discrepancies as major (n = 8444) or minor (n = 17,208). Associations among examination type (common vs advanced), relationship between examination subspecialty and the teleradiologist's fellowship (concordant vs discordant), and major and minor discrepancies were assessed using three-way conditional analyses with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS. For examinations with a concordant subspecialty, the major discrepancy rate was lower for common than for advanced examinations (0.13% vs 0.26%; relative risk [RR], 0.50, 95% CI, 0.42-0.60; p < .001). For examinations with a discordant subspecialty, the major discrepancy rate was lower for common than advanced examinations (0.14% vs 0.18%; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.90; p < .001). For common examinations, the major discrepancy rate was not different between examinations with concordant versus discordant subspecialty (0.13% vs 0.14%; RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.01; p = .07). For advanced examinations, the major discrepancy rate was higher for examinations with concordant versus discordant subspecialty (0.26% vs 0.18%; RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.79; p < .001). The minor discrepancy rate was higher among advanced examinations for those with concordant versus discordant subspecialty (0.34% vs 0.29%; RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.36; p = .04), but not different for other comparisons (p > .05). CONCLUSION. Major and minor discrepancy rates were not higher for acute community-setting examinations outside of interpreting radiologists' fellowship training. Discrepancy rates increased for advanced examinations. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings support multispecialty radiologist practice in acute community settings. Efforts to match examination and interpreting radiologist sub-specialty may not reduce diagnostic discrepancies.

Disparities in the Use of Emergency Department Advanced Imaging in Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to assess potential disparities in the utilization of advanced imaging during emergency department (ED) visits. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective study was conducting using 5% Research Identifiable Files. All CT and MRI (together defined as "advanced imaging") examinations associated with ED visits in 2015 were identified for continuously enrolled Medicare beneficiaries. Individuals with medical claims 30 days before the index ED event were excluded, and encounters that occurred in hospitals without advanced imaging capabilities were also excluded. Patient characteristics were identified using Medicare files and hospital characteristics using the American Hospital Association Annual Survey of Hospitals. Multivariate logistic regression was used for the analysis. RESULTS. Of 86,976 qualifying ED encounters, 52,833 (60.74%) ED encounters were for female patients; 29.03% (n = 25,245) occurred at rural hospitals and 15.81% (n = 13,750) at critical access hospitals. Race distribution was 83.13% White, 11.05% Black, and 5.82% Other. Compared with ED patients at urban hospitals, those at rural and critical access hospitals were 6.9% less likely (odds ratio [OR] = 0.931, p = 0.015) and 18.0% less likely (OR = 0.820, p < 0.0001), respectively, to undergo advanced imaging. Compared with White patients, Black patients were 31.6% less likely (OR = 0.684, p < 0.0001) to undergo advanced imaging. Relative to their urban counterparts, both White (OR = 0.941, p = 0.05) and Black (OR = 0.808, p = 0.047) rural ED patients were less likely to undergo advanced imaging. CONCLUSION. Among Medicare beneficiaries receiving care in U.S. EDs, significant disparities exist in advanced imaging utilization. Although imaging appropriateness was not investigated, these findings suggest inequity. Further research is necessary to understand why consistent health benefits do not translate into consistent imaging access among risk-adjusted ED patients.

Impact of variant reclassification in the clinical setting of cardiovascular genetics.

Genetic testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) has advanced over the past ten years, but these advancements have posed new challenges in variant classification. To address these challenges, ACMG/AMP published guidelines for variant interpretation in 2015. This study aimed to determine what impact these guidelines have on variant classification in clinical cardiovascular genetics. A retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent clinical genetic testing and had a variant identified in a gene associated with CVD. For each variant, systematic evidence review was performed and ACMG guidelines were applied for classification. These classifications were compared to those provided on patients' genetic test reports. This study identified 223 unique variants in 237 patients. Seventy-nine (35%) of the variants had classifications that differed from their clinical reports. Twenty-eight (35%) of these reclassifications would have changed medical management recommendations for 38 patients. Application of these guidelines resulted in reclassification for approximately one-third of the variants in this study. Clinicians can have a more active role in the process of variant classification. Variant classifications should be updated over time in the clinical CVD setting due to the impact reclassifications can have on clinical screening recommendations.

Emerging Challenges and Opportunities in the Evolution of Teleradiology.

OBJECTIVE. In recent decades, teleradiology has expanded considerably, and many radiology practices now engage in intraorganizational or extraorganizational teleradiology. In this era of patient primacy, optimizing patient care and care delivery is paramount. This article provides an update on recent changes, current challenges, and future opportunities centered around the ability of teleradiology to improve temporal and geographic imaging access. We review licensing and regulations and discuss teleradiology in providing services to rural areas and assisting with disaster response, including the response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. CONCLUSION. Teleradiology can help increase imaging efficiency and mitigate both geographic and temporal discrepancies in imaging care. Technologic limitations and regulatory hurdles hinder the optimal practice of teleradiology, and future attention to these issues may help ensure broader patient access to high-quality imaging across the United States.

CNTN6 copy number variations: Uncertain clinical significance in individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders.

Copy number variations (CNVs) of the CNTN6 gene - a member of the contactin gene superfamily - have been previously proposed to have an association with neurodevelopmental and autism spectrum disorders. However, no functional evidence has been provided to date and phenotypically normal and mildly affected carriers complicate the interpretation of this aberration. In view of conflicting reports on the pathogenicity of CNVs involving CNTN6 and association with different phenotypes, we, independently, evaluated clinical features of nineteen patients with detected CNV of CNTN6 as part of their clinical microarray analysis at Children's Mercy and Nationwide Children's Hospitals for the period of 2008-2015. The clinical presentations of these patients were variable making it difficult to establish genotype-phenotype correlations. CNVs were inherited in six patients. For thirteen patients, inheritance pattern was not established due to unavailability of parental samples for testing. In three cases CNV was inherited from a healthy parent and in three cases from a parent with neurodevelopmental symptoms. Of the nineteen patients, four had a separate genetic abberation in addition to CNV of the CNTN6 that could independently explain their respective phenotypes. Separately, CNTN6 sequencing was performed on an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research cohort of 94 children from 80 unrelated families. We found no difference in frequency of rare coding variants between the cohort of patients and controls. We conclude that CNVs involving CNTN6 alone seem to be most likely a neutral variant or a possible modifier rather than a disease-causing variant. Patients with CNVs encompassing CNTN6 could benefit from additional genetic testing since a clinical diagnosis due to a CNV of CNTN6 alone is still questionable.

White Paper: Corporatization in Radiology.

Consolidation in health care has been widely recognized as having significant impact in the United States. A related trend is the corporatization of medical professional practices by companies in capital markets. Several medical subspecialties have been identified as attractive corporatization candidates, including radiology. The purpose of the white paper is to present information about the trend of corporatization in radiology. The real, recognized, and potential influences of capital investors in radiology need to be acknowledged as evolving and important considerations. Many radiologists and practices have already realized significant change as a result of corporatization. Corporatization presents significant practical, financial, ethical, and moral implications for those in and related to radiology.

The Current State of Teleradiology Across the United States: A National Survey of Radiologists' Habits, Attitudes, and Perceptions on Teleradiology Practice.

PURPOSE: To explore the current state of teleradiology practice, defined as the interpretation of imaging examinations at a different facility from where the examination was performed. METHODS: A national survey addressing radiologists' habits, attitudes, and perceptions regarding teleradiology was distributed by e-mail to a random sample of ACR members in early 2019. RESULTS: Among 731 of 936 respondents who indicated a non-teleradiologist primary work setting, 85.6% reported performing teleradiology within the past 10 years and 25.4% reported that teleradiology represents a majority of their annual imaging volumes; 84.4% performed teleradiology for internal examinations and 45.7% for external examinations; 46.2% performed teleradiology for rural areas and 37.2% for critical access hospitals; 91.3% performed teleradiology during weekday normal business hours and 44.5% to 79.6% over evening, overnight, and weekend hours. In all, 76.9% to 86.2% perceived value from teleradiology for geographic, after-hours, and multispecialty coverage, as well as reduced interpretation turnaround times. The most common challenges for teleradiology were electronic health record access (62.8%), quality assurance (53.8%), and technologist proximity (48.4%). The strategy most commonly considered useful for improving teleradiology was technical interpretation standards (33.3%). Radiologists in smaller practices were less likely to perform teleradiology or performed teleradiology for lower fractions of work, were less likely to experience coverage advantages of teleradiology, and reported larger implementation challenges, particularly relating to electronic health records and prior examination access. CONCLUSION: Despite historic concerns, teleradiology is widespread throughout modern radiology practice, helping practices achieve geographic, after-hours, and multispecialty coverage; reducing turnaround times; and expanding underserved access. Nonetheless, quality assurance of offsite examinations remains necessary. IT integration solutions could help smaller practices achieve teleradiology's benefits.

Emergency Radiology: Current Challenges and Preparing for Continued Growth.

The escalation of imaging volumes in the emergency department and intensifying demands for rapid radiology results have increased the demand for emergency radiology. The provision of emergency radiology is essential for nearly all radiology practices, from the smallest to the largest. As our radiology specialty responds to the challenge posed by the triple threat of providing 24-7 coverage, high imaging volumes, and rapid turnaround time, various questions regarding emergency radiology have emerged, including its definition and scope, unique operational demands, quality and safety concerns, impact on physician well-being, and future directions. This article reviews the current challenges confronting the subspecialty of emergency radiology and offers insights into preparing for continued growth.

Understanding BRCA Mutation Carriers' Preferences for Communication of Genetic Modifiers of Breast Cancer Risk.

Refined estimates of risk based on genetic risk modifiers could assist BRCA mutation carriers in understanding their risk, but it is not clear whether carriers are interested in receiving these estimates or how they might benefit from them. Using qualitative interviews, we investigated female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers' (N = 20) reactions to numerical and verbal presentations of breast cancer risk based on risk modifiers and assessed women's preferences regarding visual formats for communicating risk. Our results show carriers are interested in receiving refined risk estimates and suggest the estimates may influence decision-making regarding cancer prevention, depending on the nature of the risk assessment. Although accurate and precise estimates of breast cancer risk are most important to women, they preferred quantitative risk estimates expressed as a proportion with or without a population comparison; however, women noted that comparisons to other BRCA mutation carriers were less useful given their high risk. Participants also preferred communication of a risk as a specific percentage versus a range of risk, but a clear preference regarding visual displays was not expressed. Results support many existing recommendations for genetic risk communication and provide guidance for the development of tools incorporating genetic risk modifiers.

Access to Interventional Radiology Services in Small Hospitals and Rural Communities: An ACR Membership Intercommission Survey.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the status of interventional radiology (IR) staffing, recruitment, and retention in the United States, specifically as they apply to small hospitals and rural communities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 22-question survey was created by an ACR intercommission workgroup and circulated via e-mail to ACR members who self-identified as a "group practice leader," "general radiologist," "interventional radiologist," or "abdominal radiologist." Contingency tables were constructed, and bivariate analyses were performed to assess overall responses and the distribution of responses among specific groups of respondents. RESULTS: A total of 1,005 e-mail recipients completed the survey. A statistically significant greater proportion of responders from rural hospitals (versus nonrural hospitals) answered that (1) their group falls short or far short of meeting demand for IR services (29.1% versus 14.3%), (2) they had difficulty recruiting IR physicians to their practice (67% versus 40.6%), and (3) they had difficulty retaining IR physicians (40% versus 29%). The most frequently reported reasons for difficulty recruiting were that IR-trained physicians "do not want to do diagnostic work" (56.2%) and "do not want to practice in a small or rural setting" (48.8%). A greater proportion of respondents from rural hospitals perceived that they had difficulty retaining IR physicians because of perceived inadequate "complexity of case mix" (67.5%) or "number of cases" (66.1%). CONCLUSION: Small hospitals and rural communities experience greater difficulty recruiting and retaining IR physicians and meeting IR service demands compared with their nonrural counterparts.

Unifying the Silos of Subspecialized Radiology: The Essential Role of the General Radiologist.

As radiology becomes increasingly subspecialized, conversations focus on whether the general radiologist is trending toward extinction. Current data indicate that the vast majority of graduating radiology residents now seek fellowship training. Practicing entirely within the narrow confines of one's fellowship subspecialty area, however, is uncommon, with recent data indicating that more than half of all radiologists spend the majority of their work effort as generalists. From the traditional concept of the generalist as the non-fellowship-trained radiologist who interprets everything to the multispecialty-trained radiologist to the emergency radiologist who is a subspecialist but reads across the traditional anatomic divisions, the general radiologist of today and the future is one who remains broadly skilled and equipped to provide a wide spectrum of radiologic services. The successful future of many practices of all types and the specialty as a whole will require ongoing collaborative partnerships that include both general and subspecialized radiologists. This review article highlights various scenarios in which general radiologists provide value to different types of radiology practices.

Pericentromeric regions of homozygosity on the X chromosome: Another likely benign population variant.

PURPOSE: While chromosomal regions of homozygosity (ROH) may implicate genes in known recessive disorders, their correlation to disease pathogenicity remains unclear. ROH around the centromere of the X chromosome (pericentromeric, pROH) is regarded as benign, although this has not been empirically demonstrated. METHODS: We examined microarray results from 122 female individuals harboring ROH bordering the X centromere. RESULTS: Consecutive ROH was most frequently observed for regions Xp11.23 to Xp11.21 and Xq11.1 to Xq12, with an average total size of 16.5 Mb. X chromosome pROH was unlikely related to phenotype in 41% (50/122) of cases due to other explanations: likely pathogenic deletion/duplication (17%, 21/122), apparently unaffected female (7%, 8/122), other clinical explanation (7%, 9/122), or consanguinity (10%, 12/122). Of the remaining cases with pROH as the only finding, four genes were associated with recessive disorders that overlapped one or more clinical features reported in our probands (KDM5C, FGD1, ZC4H2, and LAS1L). X chromosome pROH observed in our cohort overlapped with previously reported regions. CONCLUSIONS: pROH on the X chromosome are commonly observed in both affected individuals with alternate causes of disease as well as in unaffected individuals, suggesting that X chromosome pROH has no clinically significant effect on phenotype.