Review of the demographic and educational profiles of abdominal imaging fellowship program directors in the United States.

PURPOSE: To evaluate demographics, academic backgrounds, and scholarly activities of Program Directors (PDs) in Abdominal Imaging Fellowships in the United States (US), emphasizing gender representation, international origins, and academic milestones. METHODS: A list of Fellowships in Abdominal Imaging programs in the US was obtained from the Society of Abdominal Radiology. The search was expanded using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database. Data for PDs were sourced from program websites, Healthgrades, Doximity, and Elsevier's Scopus. Metrics such as age, gender, education, academic rank, additional qualifications, prior leadership roles, publications, and h-indices were analyzed using R software. A two-tailed unpaired t-test was used to calculate the difference in means of scholarly activity between male and female PDs. RESULTS: 113 programs were identified: South (36.28%), Northeast (25.66%), Mid-West (20.35%), West (17.69%). Of 107 PDs, 54% male, 41% female, and average age 48 ± 9.4 years. 66.6% were US graduates, 29.2% were international graduates. Most were Assistant Professors (36.28%). 19.46% had degrees like M.P.H. or M.B.A. 45% had prior leadership roles. Average year of residency graduation was 2007. Mean publication count was 54.16, and mean h-index was 14.663. Male PDs had higher publication counts and h-indices than female PDs (p= 0.009 and p= 0.0019 respectively). CONCLUSION: In Abdominal Imaging Fellowship programs in the US, there is an increasing representation of females in Program Director roles. However, research led by female PDs remains less prevalent. The field of Abdominal Imaging values contributions from international graduates and insights from Assistant Professors.

10-year update to the combined 16-month nuclear medicine and diagnostic radiology residency: The NuRad pathway.

BACKGROUND: The decline in nuclear medicine (NM) residencies in the United States has led to a shortage of NM physicians. To help address this, a 16-month NM pathway for diagnostic radiology (DR) residents was developed in 2010. At the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, we matched our first resident into the NuRad (NM + DR) pathway in 2013. Despite our success, we remain one of only five programs in the United States that offers a combined training pathway through the National Resident Matching Program. OBJECTIVES: Review our 10-year experience with the NuRad pathway at UAMS and highlight the key components and significance of the 16-month NM pathway. METHODS: Retrospective review of NRMP applicants to the DR and NuRad pathway from 2013 and 2023 at UAMS. Literature and website review of the educational structure of the 16-month NM pathway. RESULTS: We have seen significant increase in the number of applicants to the NuRad pathway at UAMS over the last 10 years with 184 applicants for 1 position in 2023, up from 18 applicants in 2013. Furthermore, we have seen an increase in the USMLE step scores for applicants during this time. CONCLUSIONS: There is a growing need for NM trained physicians in the United States. Over the last 10 years, we have seen increasing interest in the NM 16-month pathway as a part of DR residency. A wider implementation of this combined training pathway is needed, if we are to realize its full potential.

A 15-Year Analysis of International Medical Graduates Matching Into Diagnostic Radiology Residency Programs in the United States.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To analyze the trends in international medical graduates (IMGs) matching into diagnostic radiology residency programs in the United States (US). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Resident Match Program data was accessed for years 2005-2020 and diagnostic radiology residency-specific data was extracted for US MD, osteopathic (DO), and IMG applicants. IMGs were categorized into US-citizen IMGs and non-US citizen IMGs per the National Residency Match Program. Variables collected for each year included the number of positions, number of applicants in each group, positions filled/unfilled, and fill rate of each group. Additional data for some years included USMLE Step 1 score, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 clinical knowledge (CK) score, number of research experiences, number of abstracts/publications, and additional degrees obtained. Trends were analyzed using simple linear regression model and p value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The number of diagnostic radiology residency programs increased from 203 (2006) to 212 (2020). The total number of diagnostic radiology residency positions increased from 1011 (2006) to 1113 (2020), with the peak of 1145 in 2014. The overall "match rate," that is, proportion of positions filled to positions available, increased from 96.4% (2006) to 97.3% (2020), with a brief decline to 86.7% in 2015. Among the filled positions, the proportion filled by US medical school graduates significantly declined from 89.7% (2006) to 69.2% (2020) (p < 0.001), and the proportion of positions filled by osteopathic seniors and graduates significantly increased from 2.2% (2006) to 15.1% (2020; p < 0.001). The proportion of US IMGs increased from 3.2% (2006) to 5.4% (2020), while the proportion of non-US IMGs increased from 4.4% (2006) to 9.4% (2020), with overall IMG match rate increased significantly from 7.6% to 14.9% (p = 0.009). The mean Step 1 scores of US IMGs and non-US IMGs were 238 and 237.3, and the mean Step 2 CK scores were 241.67 and 241, respectively. Cumulatively over the study period, a total of 736 US IMGs and 1051 non-US IMGs have matched into diagnostic radiology residency. CONCLUSION: There is an increasing proportion of IMGs, especially the non-US citizen IMGs, matching into US radiology residency programs in the last decade. Diagnostic radiology remains a competitive specialty evidenced by average USMLE scores higher than national average and research experiences of matched candidates.

Consensus Definitions and Interpretation Templates for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Defecatory Pelvic Floor Disorders: Proceedings of the Consensus Meeting of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, the Society of Abdominal Radiology, the International Continence Society, the American Urogynecologic Society, the International Urogynecological Association, and the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

The Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium (PFDC) is a multidisciplinary organization of colorectal surgeons, urogynecologists, urologists, gynecologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, physiotherapists, and other advanced care practitioners. Specialists from these fields are all dedicated to the diagnosis and management of patients with pelvic floor conditions, but they approach, evaluate, and treat such patients with their own unique perspectives given the differences in their respective training. The PFDC was formed to bridge gaps and enable collaboration between these specialties. The goal of the PFDC is to develop and evaluate educational programs, create clinical guidelines and algorithms, and promote high quality of care in this unique patient population. The recommendations included in this article represent the work of the PFDC Working Group on Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Pelvic Floor Disorders (members listed alphabetically in Table 1). The objective was to generate inclusive, rather than prescriptive, guidance for all practitioners, irrespective of discipline, involved in the evaluation and treatment of patients with pelvic floor disorders.

LI-RADS treatment response lexicon: review, refresh and resolve with emerging data.

The imaging findings after loco regional treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma are variable based on the type of treatment used, the timing interval of imaging after treatment, and the cross-sectional modality used for treatment response assessment. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Treatment Response Algorithm (TRA) is a relatively new standardized method of evaluating treatment response after loco regional therapy to hepatocellular carcinoma. In this article, we provide an overview of the evolution of the treatment response algorithm, its current applicability and its outlook for the future. We will review current guidelines and discuss proposed changes to the algorithm as a means to continually improve LI-RADS TRA as an assessment tool post-loco regional treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Imaging After Locoregional Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Emphasis on LIRADS Treatment Response Assessment Criteria.

Radiologists play an essential role in assessing hepatocellular carcinoma treatment response and help guide further clinical management of patients. Interpretation of treatment response after locoregional therapy is challenging. The post-treatment imaging findings vary and depend on the type of treatment, the degree of treatment response, time interval after treatment and several other factors. Given the widespread use of local-regional therapies, understanding the appearance of treated lesions has become crucial to allow for a more accurate interpretation of post-treatment imaging. Several response criteria including the recently introduced Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response algorithm (TRA) are currently used to assess treatment response. This review article describes the imaging assessment of HCC treatment response after several locoregional therapies using various response assessment criteria, emphasizing the LI-RADS treatment algorithm.

Imaging After Locoregional Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Emphasis on LIRADS Treatment Response Assessment Criteria.

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is a set of algorithms designed to provide a standardized, comprehensive framework for the interpretation of surveillance and diagnostic imaging in patients at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. LI-RADS is the result of a multidisciplinary collaboration between radiologists, hepatologists, hepatobiliary surgeons and pathologists and has recently been incorporated into the practice guidelines for the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and made congruent with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) criteria. This manuscript illustrates the common ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging appearances of hepatocellular carcinoma and describes how these findings can be properly categorized using the LI-RADS system.

Clinical applications of pelvic floor imaging: opinion statement endorsed by the society of abdominal radiology (SAR), American Urological Association (AUA), and American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS).

Pelvic floor dysfunction is prevalent, with multifactorial causes and variable clinical presentations. Accurate diagnosis and assessment of the involved structures commonly requires a multidisciplinary approach. Imaging is often complementary to clinical assessment, and the most commonly used modalities for pelvic floor imaging include fluoroscopic defecography, magnetic resonance defecography, and pelvic floor ultrasound. This collaboration opinion paper was developed by representatives from multiple specialties involved in care of patients with pelvic floor dysfunction (radiologists, urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons). Here, we discuss the utility of imaging techniques in various clinical scenarios, highlighting the perspectives of referring physicians. The final draft was endorsed by the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR), American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS), and the American Urological Association (AUA).

Variability in utilization and techniques of pelvic floor imaging: findings of the SAR pelvic floor dysfunction disease-focused panel.

Pelvic floor disorders are common and can negatively impact quality of life. Imaging of patients with pelvic floor disorders has been extremely heterogeneous between institutions due in part to variations in clinical expectations, technical considerations, and radiologist experience. In order to assess variations in utilization and technique of pelvic floor imaging across practices, the society of abdominal radiology (SAR) disease-focused panel on pelvic floor dysfunction developed and administered an online survey to radiologists including the SAR membership. Results of the survey were compared with published recommendations for pelvic floor imaging to identify areas in need of further standardization. MRI was the most commonly reported imaging technique for pelvic floor imaging followed by fluoroscopic defecography. Ultrasound was only used by a small minority of responding radiologists. The survey responses demonstrated variability in imaging utilization, patient referral patterns, imaging protocols, patient education, and interpretation and reporting of pelvic floor imaging examinations. This survey highlighted inconsistencies in technique between institutions as well as potential gaps in knowledge that should be addressed to standardize evaluation of patients with pelvic floor dysfunction.

Meshy business: MRI and ultrasound evaluation of pelvic floor mesh and slings.

Pelvic floor disorders are a complex set of conditions including but not limited to stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse that generally affect older and multiparous women. Of the several surgical options available for treatment of these conditions, synthetic mid-urethral slings for stress urinary incontinence and vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse are amenable to imaging evaluation by ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging techniques. Ultrasound can evaluate the sub- and immediate peri-urethral portions of sling due to its ability to differentiate synthetic material from native tissues with real-time imaging, while MRI is able to better depict the global pelvic floor anatomy and assess the more distant components of mesh and slings material. Given the high prevalence of pelvic floor disorders and complications after surgical repair, it is important that radiologists familiarize themselves with normal and abnormal imaging findings after these procedures. This article provides a review of the spectrum of imaging findings in patients after pelvic floor repair with synthetic mid-urethral slings and vaginal mesh.

MR defecography technique: recommendations of the society of abdominal radiology's disease-focused panel on pelvic floor imaging.

PURPOSE: To develop recommendations for magnetic resonance (MR) defecography technique based on consensus of expert radiologists on the disease-focused panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR). METHODS: An extensive questionnaire was sent to a group of 20 experts from the disease-focused panel of the SAR. The questionnaire encompassed details of technique and MRI protocol used for evaluating pelvic floor disorders. 75% agreement on questionnaire responses was defined as consensus. RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus for 70% of the items and provided the basis of these recommendations for MR defecography technique. There was unanimous agreement that patients should receive coaching and explanation of commands used during MR defecography, the rectum should be distended with contrast agent, and that sagittal T2-weighted images should include the entire pelvis within the field of view. The panel also agreed unanimously that IV contrast should not be used for MR defecography. Additional areas of consensus ranged in agreement from 75 to 92%. CONCLUSION: We provide a set of consensus recommendations for MR defecography technique based on a survey of expert radiologists in the SAR pelvic floor dysfunction disease-focused panel. These recommendations can be used to develop a standardized imaging protocol.

Pelvic floor imaging with MR defecography: correlation with gynecologic pelvic organ prolapse quantification.

PURPOSE: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is assessed differently by gynecologists and radiologists. It is clinically staged by physical examination using the POP-Q (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification) system and radiologically staged by modalities such as by Magnetic Resonance Defecography (MRD). The purpose of this study was to correlate the two methods of staging pelvic organ prolapse for each pelvic compartment by comparing correlative anatomic points and differences in technique. This understanding will help synthesize information from two different perspectives and bridge the gap between multiple specialists who participate in the care of patients with complex pelvic floor disorders. METHODS: A retrospective single institution study comparison of patients who underwent both dynamic magnetic resonance pelvic floor imaging and pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) at our medical center was done. Two urogynecologists performed the POP-Q and one fellowship-trained radiologist interpreted the MRD and both staged pelvic organ prolapse independently. RESULTS: A total of 280 patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pelvic floor from 1/2013 to 12/2017, of whom 68 met our inclusion criteria. When compared to POP-Q, MRI has strong, moderate, and weak correlation for quantification of anterior, middle, and posterior compartment prolapse, respectively. POP-Q measurements Aa, Ba, C, and D are analogous to true pelvic anatomical landmarks which are directly and consistently measurable by MRI, hence accounting for the better correlation in anterior and middle compartments when compared to measurements Ap and Bp which do not correlate with true anatomical landmarks, and hence can explain the weak correlation for posterior compartment prolapse. CONCLUSION: When comparing POP-Q to MRI, anterior and middle compartment prolapse have better correlation than posterior compartment prolapse. Inherent differences that exist in technique and anatomic landmarks used for staging pelvic organ prolapse by clinical exam and imaging criteria account for this. MRD, however, still provides anatomic details on static images, real time simultaneous overview of multi-compartmental prolapse, characterizes contents of cul-de-sac hernias and rectal evacuation on dynamic imaging. Corroborative information derived from both methods of staging organ will result in optimum patient care.

Factors Influencing the Commitment of Students to Radiology as a Career Choice During Medical School Education.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to analyze the significance of specific factors in choosing radiology as a specialty compared to switching to/from a different specialty as reported in the Graduation Questionnaire (GQ) and Matriculating Student Questionnaire (MSQ) data provided by Association of American Medical Colleges. METHOD AND MATERIALS: The study cohort included students who completed both the MSQ and GQ questionnaires in the span of 3-5 years. The cohort was divided into three groups-"Committed" (students who chose radiology in both the first and final year of medical school), "Switched Away" (students who chose radiology on the MSQ but later switched to a different specialty, and "Switched-To" (students who chose radiology on GQ after initially selecting an alternate specialty on the MSQ). RESULTS: Of 1965 students who chose radiology between the years 2013 and 2016, 281 were Committed, 625 Switched-Away, and 1059 Switched-To. There were significant differences among the groups for salary, length of residency, and work-life balance factors. In the Switched-Away group, more students were influenced by length of residency (18% vs. 5%, p < 0.001) and fewer were influenced by salary (21% vs. 30%, p=0.004) or work-life balance (54% vs. 66%, p = 0.001) when compared to the Committed group. The Switched-To group did not significantly differ from the Committed group (all p > 0.05) for length of residency (6% vs. 5%), salary (30% vs. 30%) and work-life balance (69% vs. 66%). CONCLUSION: The data provide insight into factors that influence medical students to initially commit to, switch away from, and switch to radiology during medical school. Understanding these dynamics can inform mentors to guide medical students who are interested in a radiology career.

Diagnostic Radiology Residency Program Director Workforce in the United States: A Descriptive Analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate and describe the demographics, academic background, and scholarly activity of Diagnostic Radiology (DR) residency program directors in the United States. METHODS: A list of all DR residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and corresponding program directors (PD) was obtained from ACGME website. Information about each PD was obtained from publicly available sources including program websites, Healthgrades and Doximity. Demographic and academic data including age, sex, educational background, subspecialty, tenure, interval between residency completion and appointment as PD, terms served, additional degrees, academic rank, prior leadership positions and metrics of scholarly activity were recorded. Nonparametric statistics including Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied to compare differences between groups. Results are considered statistically significant at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 197 PDs were included in the study of which 139 (70.6%) were male. Average age of PDs was 47.56 years (SD 8.29, median 45, range 35-77). There was no significant difference in median age of male vs female PDs (45 vs 44.5, p = 0.655). Majority of PDs attended American medical schools (181/197, 91.9%), and 16/197 attended international medical schools. Nine PDs received DO degrees (9/197, 4.6%). Academic rank was available for 137 PDs, of which 4 (2.9%) were instructors, 63 (46.0%) were assistant professors, 47 (34.3%) were associate professors and 23 (16.8%) were professors. Fellowship information was available for 183 PDs, of which the most common subspecialties were neuroradiology (24.5%), musculoskeletal radiology (15.8%), abdominal radiology (10.3%), and interventional radiology (9.8%). Female PDs had a significantly higher median publications (13.5 vs 6.0, p = 0.003), median citations (133 vs 37, p = 0.19) and median h-index compared to male PDs (6 ± 3, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Radiology PDs are mostly males who graduated from US allopathic medical schools. Female PDs had significantly higher scholarly metrics compared to male PDs. Twenty three percent PDs were appointed in the last 1 year.