Optimizing the Radiology Experience through Radiologist-Patient Interaction.

Objective The goal of this survey-based study is to explore patients' knowledge of and expectations for radiologists in the outpatient setting.  Materials and Methods A comprehensive survey was distributed to adult patients undergoing knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) over a one-year period from September 2015 through August 2016 at an urban, quaternary care academic medical center. Results The survey results demonstrate that only a subset of patients undergoing knee MRI at the institution during the survey period are aware of the role of the radiologist, which is a well-documented fact described in the literature. Approximately one-third of patients expected to meet the radiologist during their visit to the department of radiology to undergo a knee MRI. The vast majority of patients surveyed wanted to be able to contact the person who read their exam, but only one patient actually contacted the radiologist during the study period.  Conclusion While the vast majority of surveyed patients wanted to be able to contact the person who read their knee MRI, only one patient actually did reach out to the radiologist to discuss findings. However, six of 36 follow-up respondents reported that they had contacted the person "who interpreted/read your exam:" two in person, one by email, three by phone, and one by other. Survey results demonstrated that only a subset of patients correctly understood the role of the radiologist (46% in the 1st survey and 63% in the 2nd survey, which does not represent a statistically significant difference), which suggests that perhaps the patients did have a conversation with a member of the radiology department staff whom they believed was actually the radiologist. The fact that patients expressed a desire to communicate with the person reading their reports, but then did not take advantage of the opportunity to contact the radiologist, suggests that the issue is more complicated than just a lack of a pathway for communication between patients and radiologists. Perhaps the lack of a clear understanding of the role of the radiologist hinders patients from contacting radiologists, as they feel uncertain as to whom they are actually attempting to reach. Or perhaps patients are sufficiently reassured by having a means through which they could contact the radiologist and do not require the actual communication in order to feel comfortable. There remains a significant amount of work to be done in understanding the barriers in patient-radiologist communications.

Radiographic analysis of solitary bone lesions.

Solitary bone lesions are common diagnostic dilemmas. Conventional radiography is frequently the initial imaging study for evaluation. This article provides an organized approach to analyzing and categorizing these lesions based on radiographs, emphasizes the development of a reasonable and accurate differential diagnosis, and guides the referring physician if further imaging evaluation is warranted. Use of clinical information and analysis of specific radiographic features, including lesion location, rate of growth, the presence and character of periosteal reaction, tumor matrix, and the presence of an associated soft tissue mass is reviewed. Radiographic evaluation of soft tissue masses is briefly discussed.

Radiofrequency ablation of solitary eosinophilic granuloma of bone.

OBJECTIVE: This article about our initial clinical experience describes the novel application of radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of two cases of solitary eosinophilic granuloma of the bone. CONCLUSION: Technical success was achieved in both cases with a prompt clinical response and no treatment-related complications. To our knowledge, this is the first description of the application of radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of solitary eosinophilic granuloma of the bone.

Pitfalls in MR image interpretation prompting referrals to an orthopedic oncology clinic.

Patients referred to the authors' hospital for evaluation on suspicion of a bone or soft-tissue malignancy frequently present to the Orthopaedic Oncology Clinic with magnetic resonance (MR) images that show typical features of nonmalignant or nonneoplastic entities. The purpose of this article is to review the benign entities that may be mistaken by the radiologist for a malignancy and thus lead to needless referral to an orthopedic oncologist. Normal hematopoietic marrow and marrow edema due to a stress reaction may mimic a neoplasm at MR imaging, but knowledge of the typical patterns and locations of these features allows an accurate radiologic interpretation. The MR imaging appearance of osteonecrosis, Paget disease, benign bone lesions, and rheumatologic conditions may be confusing; in such circumstances, radiographic findings may help formulate a correct diagnosis. Knowledge of the common locations and appearances of bursae and ganglia is necessary so that radiologists do not misinterpret these benign entities as soft-tissue sarcomas. Soft-tissue trauma and inflammation also may mimic tumors at MR imaging, but a familiarity with the imaging patterns of nonneoplastic change in muscle allows the avoidance of misinterpretation. The clinical history, as always, is an important component of proper diagnosis. The radiologist can be especially useful to both the clinician and the patient by recognizing entities that are highly unlikely to represent malignancy and by confidently reporting those entities as benign, thereby sparing the patient an unnecessary trip to the orthopedic oncologist.

Comparison of radiographic texture analysis from computed radiography and bone densitometry systems.

Osteoporosis is a disease that results in an increased risk of bone fracture due to a loss of bone mass and deterioration of bone structure. Bone mineral density (BMD) provides a measure of bone mass and is frequently measured by bone densitometry systems to diagnose osteoporosis. In addition, computerized radiographic texture analysis (RTA) is currently being investigated as a measure of bone structure and as an additional diagnostic predictor of osteoporosis. In this study, we assessed the ability of a peripheral bone densitometry (PD) system to yield images useful for RTA. The benefit of such a system is that it measures BMD by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and therefore provides high- and low-energy digital radiographic images. The bone densitometry system investigated was the GE/Lunar PIXI, which provides 512 x 512 digital images of the heel or forearm (0.2 mm pixels). We compared texture features of heel images obtained with this PD system to those obtained on a Fuji computed radiography (CR) system (0.1 mm pixels). Fourier and fractal-based texture features of images from 24 subjects who had both CR and BMD exams were calculated, and correlation between the two systems was analyzed. Fourier-based texture features characterize the magnitude, frequency content, and orientation of the trabecular bone pattern. Good correlation was found between the two modalities for the first moment (FMP) with r=0.71 (p value<0.0001) and for minimum FMP with r=0.52 (p value=0.008). Root-mean-square (RMS) did not correlate with r=0.31 (p value>0.05), while the standard deviation of the RMS did correlate with r=0.79 (p value<0.0001). Good correlation was also found between the two modalities for the fractal-based texture features with r=0.79 (p value<0.0001) for the global Minkowski dimension and r=0.63 (p value=0.0007) for the fractal dimension from a box counting method. The PD system therefore may have the potential for yielding heel images suitable for RTA.

Clinical utility of dual-energy vertebral assessment (DVA).

The current study was undertaken to evaluate the clinical utility of DVA, a system for imaging the lateral spine on the Lunar Prodigy densitometer. DVA images were obtained and bone density of the lumbar spine and proximal femur measured in 297 subjects (272 women), aged 64+/-13 years. The images were classified as: normal (N) if no fractures were detected and all vertebrae between T6 and L4 were visualized, fracture (F) if any vertebra had a fracture (defined as 25% or more reduction in the vertebral height) even if some of the other vertebrae could not be visualized, and un-interpretable (U) if at least one of the vertebra between T6 and L4 could not be classified and no fractures were detected in the visualized vertebrae. A subset of 66 patients also had standard radiographs of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Compared to radiographs, DVA had a 95% sensitivity to detect fractures and 82% specificity (to exclude them). Among all 297 subjects studied, DVAs were interpretable in 87%. They were classified as N in 204 (68%), F in 55 (19%) and U in 38 (13%). The reasons for un-interpretability were: scoliosis, scapular or rib shadow, severe arthritic changes and multiple vertebral compression fracture with severe spinal deformities. Only 11% of F subjects gave a history of a vertebral fracture, and only 56% of F subjects met the BMD criteria for osteoporosis (T score <-2.5). These results indicate that adding DVA, a low radiation and relatively low cost "point of service" procedure, to BMD measurement provides the clinician with a more comprehensive fracture risk assessment than that afforded by clinical evaluation and BMD measurement alone.