"My attending really wants it!" Manual clinical decision support adjudicating the "better look" inpatient MRI at an academic medical center.

OBJECTIVE: MRI utilization in the United States is relatively higher than in other parts of the world and inpatient MRI utilization is particularly difficult to manage given the lack of direct reimbursement. Body MRI studies present an opportunity to reduce inpatient MRI utilization since they are generally the least emergent. Our objective was to use a targeted questionnaire to probe the necessity of inpatient body MRI orders and present an opportunity to either cancel them or transition them to the outpatient realm METHODS: A 9-item questionnaire was devised asking questions about the urgency of the inpatient MRI order including the urgent management question, an inpatient procedure or whether it was recommended by a consultant. Peer-to-peer discussion walking through each of the questions was conducted by radiology housestaff with the ordering clinicians and responses recorded. RESULTS: 845 recorded responses reported a lack of specific clinical question in 23.9% of orders, 68.9% were recommended by a non-radiology consulting service and 16.1% were recommended by radiology studies. 17.0% orders were felt to be outpatient appropriate and 23.3% were considered possibly appropriate for the outpatient setting. 3.9% were canceled and 4.9% were transitioned to outpatient orders. DISCUSSION: Engaging in a focused discussion about the urgency and appropriateness of an inpatient MRI body order following a list of scripted questions has the potential to reduce utilization. This approach also highlights the relatively high rate of indication uncertainty among ordering clinicians and the central role of consultants in prompting orders.

The Early-Enhancing Hepatic Vein: Differentiating Focal Nodular Hyperplasia and Hepatic Adenoma With Pathologic Validation in MRI.

BACKGROUND: Focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and hepatic adenoma (HA) are two common benign liver lesions with different management options. In particular, resection is considered for large HA lesions to avoid possible bleeding complications or rarely malignant degeneration. PURPOSE: To determine whether early enhancement of a draining hepatic vein (EDHV) and absence of perilesional enhancement (PLE) on arterial phase MR images are useful for distinguishing FNH from HA. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: A total of 34 patients: 16 with FNH and 18 with HA lesions. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A1.5 T, axial T1 fat-suppressed arterial postcontrast. ASSESMENT: Four abdominal radiologists blinded to pathologic diagnosis assessed for the presence or absence of EDHV in association with the lesion, definitively characterized by pathology. This was considered present if contrast could be identified in a hepatic vein contiguous with the lesion in question. Secondarily, PLE was evaluated. STATISTICAL TESTS: Fleiss's multirater kappa statistic, Chi-squared statistic, Phi-coefficient. Significance level P < 0.05. RESULTS: Considering all observations obtained from the four readers, an EDHV was identified with FNH 48.5% of the time. EDHV was seen with HA in 8.8% of cases. PLE was seen with significantly greater frequency in HA. The presence of an EDHV was associated with the absence of PLE. DATA CONCLUSION: In a lesion that may be either an FNH or HA, confident identification on arterial phase images of an EDHV should lead the reader to favor FNH, while the presence PLE should dissuade the reader from FNH. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 4. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Interpreting body MRI cases: classic findings in pelvic MRI.

The high contrast resolution provided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared to all other modalities allows the interpreting radiologist to make a specific diagnosis for many common and uncommon findings. In some cases, the diagnosis can be so certain that there is no differential diagnosis. In this article, we review the most classically recognized findings when interpreting MRI of the pelvis including the following: Ovaries: Simple cyst, hemorrhagic cyst, corpus luteum, dermoid, fibroma/fibrothecoma. Uterus: C-section scar, adenomyosis, endometriosis, fibroid, congenital uterine anomalies. Cervix: nabothian cyst, cervical cancer. Vagina/Vulva: Gardener's duct cyst, Bartholin's gland cyst. Urethra: skene gland cyst, urethral diverticulum. Prostate: utricle cyst, Mullerian duct cyst, benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate cancer.

Interpreting body MRI cases: what you need to know to get started.

Interpreting body MRI cases can seem overwhelming to an uninitiated radiologist. The standard study includes a variety of pulse sequences, the names of which vary depending on the MR vendor. Pulse sequences may be displayed haphazardly on the picture archiving and communication system (PACS), frequently not synchronized with the imaging protocol. Adding to the complexity is the use of different gadolinium-based contrast agents, which may affect the timing and diagnostic yield of each sequence. The following introductory primer for interpreting body MRI cases is meant to create a basic framework for efficiently reviewing body MRI cases to provide high quality interpretations, fully utilizing the diagnostic information of the modality. There are 4 components that need to be mastered when interpreting body MRI cases including: (1) recognizing the key sequences in a basic body MRI protocol, (2) learning how to best display the key pulse sequences on PACS, (3) understanding the technique and clinical utility of each sequence and learning how to utilize sequences to be an "MR Pathologist", and (4) understanding the key features of the different gadolinium based contrast agents.