What Patients Want to Know about Imaging Examinations: A Multiinstitutional U.S. Survey in Adult and Pediatric Teaching Hospitals on Patient Preferences for Receiving Information before Radiologic Examinations

Purpose To identify what information patients and parents or caregivers found useful before an imaging examination, from whom they preferred to receive information, and how those preferences related to patient-specific variables including demographics and prior radiologic examinations. Materials and Methods A 24-item survey was distributed at three pediatric and three adult hospitals between January and May 2015. The χ2 or Fisher exact test (categorical variables) and one-way analysis of variance or two-sample t test (continuous variables) were used for comparisons. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine associations between responses and demographics. Results Of 1742 surveys, 1542 (89%) were returned (381 partial, 1161 completed). Mean respondent age was 46.2 years ± 16.8 (standard deviation), with respondents more frequently female (1025 of 1506, 68%) and Caucasian (1132 of 1504, 75%). Overall, 78% (1117 of 1438) reported receiving information about their examination most commonly from the ordering provider (824 of 1292, 64%), who was also the most preferred source (1005 of 1388, 72%). Scheduled magnetic resonance (MR) imaging or nuclear medicine examinations (P < .001 vs other examination types) and increasing education (P = .008) were associated with higher rates of receiving information. Half of respondents (757 of 1452, 52%) sought information themselves. The highest importance scores for pre-examination information (Likert scale ≥4) was most frequently assigned to information on examination preparation and least frequently assigned to whether an alternative radiation-free examination could be used (74% vs 54%; P < .001). Conclusion Delivery of pre-examination information for radiologic examinations is suboptimal, with half of all patients and caregivers seeking information on their own. Ordering providers are the predominant and preferred source of examination-related information, with respondents placing highest importance on information related to examination preparation

Screening for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma in BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: Results of a Disease Simulation Model

Background: BRCA2 mutation carriers are at increased risk for multiple cancers including pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC). Our goal was to compare the effectiveness of different PAC screening strategies in BRCA2 mutation carriers, from the standpoint of life expectancy. Methods: A previously published Markov model of PAC was updated and extended to incorporate key aspects of BRCA2 mutation carrier status, including competing risks of breast- and ovarian-cancer specific mortality. BRCA2 mutation carriers were modeled and analyzed as the primary cohort for the analysis. Additional higher risk BRCA2 cohorts that were stratified according to the number of first-degree relatives (FDRs) with PAC were also analyzed. For each cohort, one-time screening and annual screening were evaluated, with screening starting at age 50 in both strategies. The primary outcome was net gain in life expectancy (LE) compared to no screening. Sensitivity analysis was performed on key model parameters, including surgical mortality and MRI test performance. Findings: One-time screening at age 50 resulted in a LE gain of 3.9 days for the primary BRCA2 cohort, and a gain of 5.8 days for those with BRCA2 and one FDR. Annual screening resulted in LE loss of 12.9 days for the primary cohort and 1.3 days for BRCA2 carriers with 1 FDR, but resulted in 20.6 days gained for carriers with 2 FDRs and 260 days gained for those with 3 FDRs. For patients with ≥ 3 FDRs, annual screening starting at an earlier age (i.e. 35–40) was optimal. Interpretation Among BRCA2 mutation carriers, aggressive screening regimens may be ineffective unless additional indicators of elevated risk (e.g., 2 or more FDRs) are present. More clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings. Funding American Cancer Society – New England Division – Ellison Foundation Research Scholar Grant (RSG-15-129-01-CPHPS)

Improving Diversity, Inclusion, and Representation in Radiology and Radiation Oncology Part 1: Why These Matter

The ACR Commission for Women and General Diversity is committed to identifying barriers to a diverse physician workforce in radiology and radiation oncology (RRO), and to offering policy recommendations to overcome these barriers. In Part 1 of a 2-part position article from the commission, diversity as a concept and its dimensions of personality, character, ethnicity, biology, biography, and organization are introduced. Terms commonly used to describe diverse individuals and groups are reviewed. The history of diversity and inclusion in US society and health care are addressed. The post–Civil Rights Era evolution of diversity in medicine is delineated: Diversity 1.0, with basic awareness, nondiscrimination, and recruitment; Diversity 2.0, with appreciation of the value of diversity but inclusion as peripheral or in opposition to other goals; and Diversity 3.0, which integrates diversity and inclusion into core missions of organizations and their leadership, and leverages its potential for innovation and contribution. The current states of diversity and inclusion in RRO are reviewed in regard to gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The lack of representation and unchanged demographics in these fields relative to other medical specialties are explored. The business case for diversity is discussed, with examples of successful models and potential application to the health care industry in general and to RRO. The moral, ethical, and public health imperative for diversity is also highlighted

Evaluating lung cancer screening in China: Implications for eligibility criteria design from a microsimulation modeling approach

More than half of males in China are current smokers and evidence from western countries tells us that an unprecedented number of smoking-attributable deaths will occur as the Chinese population ages. We used the China Lung Cancer Policy Model (LCPM) to simulate effects of computed tomography (CT)-based lung cancer screening in China, comparing the impact of a screening guideline published in 2015 by a Chinese expert group to a version developed for the United States by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The China LCPM, built using an existing lung cancer microsimulation model, can project population outcomes associated with interventions for smoking-related diseases. After calibrating the model to published Chinese smoking prevalence and lung cancer mortality rates, we simulated screening from 2016 to 2050 based on eligibility criteria from the CMS and Chinese guidelines, which differ by age to begin and end screening, pack-years smoked, and years since quitting. Outcomes included number of screens, mortality reduction, and life-years saved for each strategy. We projected that in the absence of screening, 14.98 million lung cancer deaths would occur between 2016 and 2050. Screening with the CMS guideline would prevent 0.72 million deaths and 5.8 million life-years lost, resulting in 6.58% and 1.97% mortality reduction in males and females, respectively. Screening with the Chinese guideline would prevent 0.74 million deaths and 6.6 million life-years lost, resulting in 6.30% and 2.79% mortality reduction in males and females, respectively. Through 2050, 1.43 billion screens would be required using the Chinese screening strategy, compared to 988 million screens using the CMS guideline. In conclusion, CT-based lung cancer screening implemented in 2016 and based on the Chinese screening guideline would prevent about 20,000 (2.9%) more lung cancer deaths through 2050, but would require about 445 million (44.7%) more screens than the CMS guideline

Radiation exposure from CT-guided ablation of renal masses: effects on life expectancy

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to project the effects of radiation exposure on life expectancy (LE) in patients who opt for CT-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) instead of surgery for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS. We developed a decision-analytic Markov model to compare LE losses attributable to radiation exposure in hypothetical 65-year-old patients who undergo CT-guided RFA versus surgery for small ( \u3c /= 4 cm) RCC. We incorporated mortality risks from RCC, radiation-induced cancers (for procedural and follow-up CT scans), and all other causes; institutional data informed the RFA procedural effective dose. Radiation-induced cancer risks were generated using an organ-specific approach. Effects of varying model parameters and of dose-reduction strategies were evaluated in sensitivity analysis. RESULTS. Cumulative RFA exposures (up to 305.2 mSv for one session plus surveillance) exceeded those from surgery (up to 87.2 mSv). In 65-year-old men, excess LE loss from radiation-induced cancers, comparing RFA to surgery, was 11.7 days (14.6 days for RFA vs 2.9 days for surgery). Results varied with sex and age; this difference increased to 14.6 days in 65-year-old women and to 21.5 days in 55-year-old men. Dose-reduction strategies that addressed follow-up rather than procedural exposure had a greater impact. In 65-year-old men, this difference decreased to 3.8 days if post-RFA follow-up scans were restricted to a single phase; even elimination of RFA procedural exposure could not achieve equivalent benefits. CONCLUSION. CT-guided RFA remains a safe alternative to surgery, but with decreasing age, the higher burden of radiation exposure merits explicit consideration. Dose-reduction strategies that target follow-up rather than procedural exposure will have a greater impact

Cumulative lung cancer-specific mortality reduction, 2016–2050.

<p>Percent mortality reduction predicted by the Lung Cancer Policy Model is shown for males and females, both separately and combined, following screening with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) criteria and screening with Chinese national guideline (CNG) criteria.</p