Improving Lung Cancer Screening Access for Individuals With Serious Mental Illness

Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States across all races and ethnicities, but it does not affect everyone equally. Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI), including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, experience two to four times greater lung cancer mortality in part due to high rates of smoking, delays in cancer diagnosis, and inequities in cancer treatment. Additionally, adults with SMI experience patient, clinician, and health care system–level barriers to accessing cancer screening, such as cognitive deficits that impact understanding of cancer risk, higher rates of poverty and social isolation, patient-provider communication challenges, decreased access to tobacco cessation, and the fragmentation of primary care and mental health care. Despite the proven benefits and mandated coverage by public and private payers, lung cancer screening participation rates remain low among eligible patients, below 4% a year. Given disparities in other cancer screening modalities, these rates are likely to be even lower among individuals with SMI. This article provides a brief overview of current challenges in lung cancer screening and describes a pilot collaboration between radiology and psychiatry that has potential to improve access to lung cancer screening for individuals with serious mental illness.     

Breast Screening Utilization and Cost Sharing Among Employed Insured Women After the Affordable Care Act

ObjectiveTo assess changes in screening mammography cost sharing and utilization before and after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the revised US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines. To compare mammography cost sharing between women aged 40 to 49 and those 50 to 74.MethodsWe used patient-level analytic files between 2004 and 2014 from Clinformatics Data Mart (OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, Minnesota). We included women 40 to 74 years without a history of breast cancer or mastectomy. We conducted an interrupted time series analyses assessing cost sharing and utilization trends before and after the ACA implementation and USPSTF revised guidelines.ResultsWe identified 1,763,959 commercially insured women aged 40 to 74 years. Between 2004 and 2014, the proportion of women with zero cost share for screening mammography increased from 81.9% in 2004 to 98.2% in 2014, reaching 93.1% with the 2010 ACA implementation. The adjusted median cost share remained $0 over time. Initially at 36.0% in 2004, screening utilization peaked at 42.2% in 2009 with the USPSTF guidelines change, dropping to 40.0% in 2014. Comparing women aged 40 to 49, 50 to 64, and 65 to 74, the proportion exposed to cost sharing declined over time in all groups.ConclusionsA substantial majority of commercially insured women had first-dollar coverage for mammography before the ACA. After ACA, nearly all women had access to zero cost-share mammography. The lack of an increase in mammography use post-ACA can be partially attributed to a USPSTF guideline change, the high proportion of women without cost sharing before the ACA, and the relatively low levels of cost sharing before the policy implementation.     

Beyond Universal Health Care: Barriers to Breast Cancer Screening Participation in Canada

PurposeDespite well-established preventive screening guidelines for breast cancer, screening rates do not meet targets in both the United States and Canada. Although access to preventive care is an important factor toward participation, breast cancer screening rates in Canada vary despite a universal health care system. The objective of this study is to understand features within the Canadian population that potentiate screening disparities through a systematic review of the literature.MethodsA search of MEDLINE and Embase was performed to identify relevant studies published from 2005 onward. Titles and abstracts were screened, followed by full-text screening. Inclusion criteria were defined as studies reporting on disparities in image-based screening for breast cancer.ResultsThree hundred twenty-four studies were retrieved, from which 29 studies were selected on the basis of the predetermined inclusion criteria. Population groups identified at risk for low image-based screening participation included those of low socioeconomic status, individuals with comorbidities, new immigrants and refugees, those in remote geographic locations, individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities, and ethnocultural minorities. Barriers to image-based screening can be improved by targeting measures specific to these at-risk groups at the individual, organization, and policy levels.ConclusionsMultiple at-risk population groups exist for preventive cancer screening within a universal health care system. By understanding specific characteristics within these vulnerable populations, effective intervention strategies can be established to improve breast cancer preventive care.     

The Patient Perspective on Lung Cancer Screening and Health Disparities

Lung cancer screening is just starting to be implemented across the United States. Challenges to screening include access to care, awareness of the option for screening, stigma and implicit bias that are due to stigmatization of smoking, stigma of race, nihilism with lung cancer diagnosis viewed as a “death sentence,” shared decision making, and underestimation of lung cancer risk. African Americans (AA) have the highest lung cancer mortality rate in the United States despite similar smoking rates as whites. AAs are diagnosed at a later stage, and there is a greater likelihood they will refuse treatment options when diagnosed. Additionally, fewer AAs were found to meet lung cancer screening eligibility criteria compared with whites because of lower tobacco exposure and younger age at time of diagnosis. Outreach and access for lung cancer screening in the AA community and other subpopulations at risk are critical to avoid further increasing disparities in lung cancer morbidity and mortality as lung cancer screening is implemented across the United States. The path forward requires implementing outreach programs and providing lung cancer screening in underserved communities at high risk for lung cancer; consideration of using National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for screening selection criteria, including risk model screening selection; and developing interventions to address stigma, clinician implicit bias, and nihilism.     

Nationwide,Longitudinal Trends in CT Colonography Utilization: Cross-Sectional Survey Results From the 2010 and 2015 National Health Interview Survey

PurposeColon cancer screening reduces deaths from colorectal cancer. Screening rates have plateaued; however, studies have found that giving patients a choice between different screening tests improves adherence. CT colonography is a minimally invasive screening test with high sensitivity for colonic polyps (>1 cm). With increasing insurance coverage of CT colonography nationwide, there are limited estimates of CT colonography utilization over time. Our purpose was to estimate CT colonography utilization over time using nationally representative cross-sectional survey data.MethodsWe utilized 2010 and 2015 National Health Interview Survey cross-sectional data. Participants between ages 50 and 75 without colorectal cancer history were included. Accounting for complex survey design elements, logistic regression analyses evaluated changes in CT colonography utilization over time, adjusted for potential confounders, and stratified by insurance and age.ResultsOverall, 21,686 respondents were included (8,965 in 2010, 12,721 in 2015). Reported CT colonography utilization decreased from 1.2% to 0.9% (odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-0.98). Stratified analyses revealed no changes in utilization in patients with private insurance (P = .35) and in patients younger than 65 (P = .07). Overall awareness of CT colonography decreased from 20.5% to 15.9% (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.91-0.95). Reported optical colonoscopy utilization increased from 57.9% to 63.6% (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.05).ConclusionDespite increasing self-reported utilization of optical colonoscopy from 2010 to 2015, survey results suggest that CT colonography awareness (～16%) and utilization (～1%) remain low. Improved public awareness and coverage expansion to Medicare-aged populations will promote improved CT colonography utilization and overall colorectal cancer screening rates.     

Updated Trends,Disparities, and Clinical Impact of Neuroimaging Utilization in Ischemic Stroke in the Medicare Population: 2012 to 2019

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to update trends, investigate sociodemographic disparities, and evaluate the impact on mortality of stroke neuroimaging across the United States from 2012 to 2019.MethodsRetrospective cohort study using CMS Medicare 5% Research Identifiable Files, representing consecutive ischemic stroke emergency department or hospitalized patients aged ≥65 years. A total of 85,547 stroke episodes with demographic and clinical information were analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests and logistic regression. Outcome measures were neuroimaging (CT angiography [CTA], CT perfusion [CTP], MRI, MR angiography [MRA]) utilization, acute treatment (endovascular thrombectomy [EVT] and intravenous thrombolysis [IVT]), and mortality while in the hospital and at 30 days and 1 year post discharge.ResultsSignificantly increasing utilization trends for CTA (250%), CTP (428%) and MRI (18%), and a decreasing trend for MRA (?33%) were observed from 2012 to 2019 (P < .0001). Controlling for covariates in the logistic regression models, CTA and CTP were significantly associated with higher EVT and IVT utilization. Although CTA, MRI, and MRA were associated with lower mortality, CTP was associated with higher mortality post discharge. Less neuroimaging was performed in rural patients; older patients (≥80 years) had lower utilization of CTA, MRI, and MRA; female patients had lower rates of CTA; and Black patients had lower utilization of CTA and CTP.ConclusionsCTA and CTP utilization increased in the Medicare ischemic stroke population from 2012 to 2019 and both were associated with greater EVT and IVT use. However, disparities exist in neuroimaging utilization across all demographic groups, and further understanding of the root causes of these disparities will be crucial to achieving equity in stroke care.     

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Radiology: A Call to Action

The US health care system is in the midst of incredible transformation. High-value, high-quality health care is the ultimate goal. Guided by the Institute of Medicine report “Crossing the Quality Chasm,” the focus is to deliver care that is safe, efficient, effective, timely, patient centered, and equitable. Equity is the principle that quality of care should not vary based on patient characteristics, such as race or ethnicity. Even with the same insurance and socioeconomic status and when comorbidities, stage of presentation, and other confounders are controlled for, minorities often receive a lower quality of health care than their white counterparts. These racial and ethnic disparities in quality of care contribute to disparities in health outcomes and higher costs. Radiology is not exempt from this issue, as disparities related to imaging services have been reported in the literature. The root causes of racial and ethnic disparities in health care are complex and include the negative impact of the social determinants of health, limited access to care, as well as health system, provider, and patient factors. The field of radiology has a unique opportunity to engage in efforts to improve quality, address disparities, and achieve equity. A call to action is necessary, with a focus on addressing social determinants of health; creating culturally, linguistically, and health literacy-appropriate outreach and services; investing in cross-cultural education; and diversifying the radiology workforce. Ultimately, radiologists can provide equitable access to radiology care and promote person-centered care solutions that are tailored to the needs of diverse populations.     

Patient Navigation to Improve Cancer Screening in Underserved Populations: Reported Experiences,Opportunities, and Challenges

Our goal is to define patient navigation for an imaging audience, present a focused selection of published experiences with navigation programs for breast and colorectal cancer screening, and expose principal barriers to the success of such programs. Despite numerous advances in the early detection of cancers, many patients still present with advanced disease. A disproportionate number are low-income minority patients who experience worse health outcomes than their white or more financially stable counterparts. Patient navigation, which aims to assist the medically underserved by overcoming specific barriers to care, may represent one solution to narrowing disparities. Related research suggests that in general, patient navigation programs that have addressed breast or colorectal cancer screening have been successful in improving screening rates and timeliness of follow-up care. However, although beneficial, navigation is expensive and may present an unmanageable financial burden for many health care centers. To overcome this challenge, navigation efforts will likely need to target those patients that are most likely to benefit. Further research to identify such patients will be critically important for improving the sustainability of navigation programs, and, in turn, for realizing the benefits of such programs in reducing cancer disparities.     

Radiologist Group Performance Reporting: Power in Numbers

PurposeRadiologists have historically participated as individuals in CMS pay-for-performance programs, but little is known about how radiologists perform under increasingly available group participation. We aimed to assess radiologists’ relative national performance on CMS quality metrics using group versus individual participation.MethodsRadiologists’ group- and individual-level 2016 performance on Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) and non-PQRS Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) measures were obtained from the CMS national Physician Compare database and compared.ResultsRadiology groups reported an average 4.6 ± 2.0 quality measures; individual radiologists reported 2.3 ± 1.2 (P < .001). At least six measures were reported by 31.5% of groups versus 1.0% of individuals. Only one measure was reported by 5.4% of groups versus 33.0% of individuals. Groups reported 21 unique measures (20 via registries and one via QCDR). For 8 of the 11 measures reported by 20 or more groups, the average group performance rate was 3% or better than the average performance rate among radiologists participating as individuals (maximum 14% improvement with group participation versus individual participation for any individual measure). Group and individual performance were similar for the remaining three such measures. For measures reported by 20 or more groups in which a higher score indicates better performance, average group performance rates ranged from 86.2% to 98.9%.ConclusionCompared with individual participation in CMS quality performance programs, radiologists participating as a group reported larger numbers of quality measures and achieved higher performance rates on those measures. Radiology practices seeking success under Medicare’s new Quality Payment Program should carefully explore group participation.     

Geographic access to brachytherapy services in the United States

PURPOSEDisparities in geographic access to medical care exist in nearly all fields of medicine including radiation oncology. We aim to update knowledge of the geographic distribution of radiation oncologists in the United States.METHODS AND MATERIALSWe used the Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (PUF) from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Directory of Radiotherapy Centers (DIRAC) database to identify practices that either coded for or are marked as having access to brachytherapy services. Geographic analysis was performed on several levels including United States (US) Census region, Dartmouth Atlas Healthcare Referral Region, and the county level.RESULTSWe identified 327 providers that billed for a brachytherapy code during the calendar year 2018 and 564 facilities providing brachytherapy. Within the 306 HRRs in the US, 149 have access to brachytherapy. This represents 247.5 million people based on 2018 estimates of population from the US Census Bureau. This implies that 76.7% of people within the US live in an HRR with access to brachytherapy, and, conversely, that 75.3 million people (23.3%) do not. Numerically, counties in metropolitan areas were more likely to have access to brachytherapy than those outside of a metropolitan area.CONCLUSIONSGeographic disparities exist in access to brachytherapy; metropolitan counties are more likely to have access than non-metropolitan counties. We support continued development of databases of brachytherapy providers and programs that may support travel and lodging costs to minimize these disparities.     

United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to examine the scientific evidence considered by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in recommending against screening mammography in women 40-49 years old and against annual screening mammography in women 50 and older. We use evidence made available to the USPSTF to estimate the benefits and "harms" of screening mammography in women 40 years old and older. We use Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network modeling to compare lives saved by different screening scenarios and the summary of evidence prepared for the USPSTF to estimate the frequency of harms of screening mammography by age. CONCLUSION: Averaged over the six Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network models of benefit, screening mammography shows greatest benefit--a 39.6% mortality reduction--from annual screening of women 40-84 years old. This screening regimen saves 71% more lives than the USPSTF-recommended regimen of biennial screening of women 50-74 years old, which had a 23.2% mortality reduction. For U.S. women currently 30-39 years old, annual screening mammography from ages 40-84 years would save 99,829 more lives than USPSTF recommendations if all women comply, and 64,889 more lives with the current 65% compliance rate. The potential harms of a screening examination in women 40-49 years old, on average, consist of the risk of a recall for diagnostic workup every 12 years, a negative biopsy every 149 years, a missed breast cancer every 1,000 years, and a fatal radiation-induced breast cancer every 76,000-97,000 years. Evidence made available to the USPSTF strongly supports the mortality benefit of annual screening mammography beginning at age 40 years, whereas potential harms of screening with this regimen are minor.     

Healthcare Disparities in Interventional Radiology

Racial, ethnic, and sex-based healthcare disparities have been documented for the past several decades. Nonetheless, disparities remain firmly entrenched in our care delivery systems, with multiple contributing factors, including patient interactions with care providers, systemic barriers to access, and socioeconomic determinants of health. Interventional radiology is also subject to these drivers of health inequity. In this review, documented disparities for the most common conditions being addressed by interventional radiologists are summarized; their magnitude is quantified where relevant, and underlying drivers are identified. Specific examples are provided to illustrate how medical, cultural, and socioeconomic factors interact to produce unequal outcomes. By outlining known disparities and common contributors, this review aims to motivate future efforts to mitigate them.     

Environmental,structural and process barriers in breast cancer screening for women with physical disability: A qualitative study

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women internationally and is responsible for the deaths of thousands of women annually. Early detection of breast cancer is integral to ensure early intervention which increases survival rates and health outcomes for women. Despite the availability of breast cancer screening (BCS), previous research has identified that women with physical disability are less likely to access BCS and when they do, they encounter substantial barriers to these services. This paper presents the environmental, systemic and process barriers that women with physical disability face in undertaking BCS in New South Wales, Australia. A qualitative design was used to collect data via in-depth interviews which were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Twelve women with physical disability participated in interviews to share their experiences of BCS. Findings revealed that participants had both negative and positive experiences during BCS and are presented in the following four themes: Needing better access, Feeling like the machines aren't made for people like me; Experiencing health workers as being clinical and detached and; Facilitating and improving the experience of breast screening. Participants encountered substantial difficulties with the inflexibility of the diagnostic equipment. Further some conveyed that negative experiences of the procedure and interactions with staff while accessing mammography would deter them from returning for BCS. Informed and individualised care is required to enhance the experience of women with physical disability and thus increase uptake rates of this service.     

Lumbar Spine MRI: Missed Opportunities for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Detection

PurposeThe US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends 1-time sonographic screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in male smokers ages 65-75 and other selected individuals in this age group based on risk factors. Patients in this age range are frequent utilizers of lumbar spine MRI, in which the abdominal aorta is typically fully imaged. The purpose of this study was to assess the potential detection rate of AAAs on lumbar spine MRI performed in the USPSTF screening age range with systematic aortic measurement and the frequency with which AAAs are currently reported in practice.Materials and MethodsAll consecutive lumbar spine MRI exams performed without contrast at a single academic tertiary care center over a 1-year period (4/1/2016-3/31/2017) in patients ages 65-75 were retrospectively reviewed. Maximal anteroposterior, and transverse dimensions of the abdominal aorta were measured using axial T2-weighted images, supplemented with sagittal T2-weighted images if assessment was limited by field-of-view or artifact. The detection rate of AAA, defined as dilation of the aorta to a diameter of ≥3 cm, size of AAAs detected, and frequency with which AAAs were reported, were assessed. Differences in aortic diameters and aneurysm detection rates between genders were compared with the unpaired 2-sample t test.ResultsThree hundred and ninety-five lumbar spine MRIs were reviewed, 240 (60.8%) in women and 155 (39.2%) in men, with mean ± standard deviation (SD) age of 70.2 ± 3.2 years. AAAs were detected in 38/395 (9.6%) cases, most (33/38, 86.8%) of which were <4 cm. Of these, only 4 (10.5%) were reported by the interpreting radiologist; 3/4 (75%) corresponded to aneurysms ≥4 cm.ConclusionLumbar spine MRI performed in the USPSTF AAA screening age range, especially in men, facilitates frequent detection of AAA when the aorta is systematically measured. However, in typical lumbar spine assessment, AAAs are often underreported, particularly for smaller aneurysms.     

Challenges and Opportunities for Lung Cancer Screening in Rural America

Rural populations have higher rates of smoking and both lung cancer incidence and mortality compared with their urban peers. As such, it is imperative that high-risk, rural populations have access to recommended low-dose CT (LDCT) screening, which can detect lung cancer at an earlier, more treatable stage. Data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative survey, were analyzed to assess nonmetropolitan-metropolitan and geographic differences in LDCT utilization among screening-eligible individuals. Screening uptake did not differ by nonmetropolitan vs. metropolitan status (3.72% and 3.83%, respectively). Regional uptake varied from 1.58% in the West to 10.11% in the Northeast. Additionally, nonmetropolitan populations represent a disproportionately high 23% of the screening-eligible population despite accounting for only 15% of the US population. There are two key challenges to high-quality LDCT screening experienced by rural populations: (1) geographic access to LDCT screening programs and (2) provider-patient communication. Despite the increased availability of LDCT screening centers since 2015, which is when most insurance plans began to cover the costs of screening, centers are geographically maldistributed relative to the rural-urban and regional need. Although decision aids can facilitate discussion between providers and patients regarding the risks and benefits of LDCT screening, research on the uptake and utility of these tools in rural areas is very limited. Analyses of population-based surveys and administrative and clinical data are needed to continue to surveil screening utilization, elucidate predictors of screening use, and inform shared decision-making tools and interventions for at-risk rural populations.     

Outcomes by Race in Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography

PurposeDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in conjunction with digital mammography (DM) is becoming the preferred imaging modality for breast cancer screening compared with DM alone, on the basis of improved recall rates (RR) and cancer detection rates (CDRs). The aim of this study was to investigate racial differences in the utilization and performance of screening modality.MethodsRetrospective data from 63 US breast imaging facilities from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. Screening outcomes were linked to cancer registries. RR, CDR per 1,000 examinations, and positive predictive value for recall (cancers/recalled patients) were compared.ResultsA total of 385,503 women contributed 542,945 DBT and 261,359 DM screens. A lower proportion of screenings for Black women were performed using DBT plus DM (referred to as DBT) (44% for Black, 48% for other, 63% for Asian, and 61% for White). Non-White women were less likely to undergo more than one mammographic examination. RRs were lower for DBT among all women (8.74 versus 10.06, P < .05) and lower across all races and within age categories. RRs were significantly higher for women with only one mammogram. CDRs were similar or higher in women undergoing DBT compared with DM, overall (4.73 versus 4.60, adjusted P = .0005) and by age and race. Positive predictive value for recall was greater for DBT overall (5.29 versus 4.45, adjusted P < .0001) and by age, race, and screening frequency.ConclusionsAll racial groups had improved outcomes with DBT screening, but disparities were observed in DBT utilization. These data suggest that reducing inequities in DBT utilization may improve the effectiveness of breast cancer screening.     

Modifiers of Cancer Screening Prevention Among Sexual and Gender Minorities in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

PurposeIncreasing social acceptance of sexual and gender minorities may not translate to parity in health care access and health outcomes. Sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) may continue to contribute to differences in preventive health behavior including cancer screening. Our purpose was to estimate the independent effect of SOGI on breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening adherence.MethodsWe used sampling weighted data from 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We defined breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening using the US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. All survey data were self-reported including demographic and medical information. We calculated the prevalence of screening by sexual orientation (straight, lesbian or gay, bisexual) and gender identity (cisgender, transgender). The term “sexual and gender minorities” in our study refers to lesbian or gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. Logistic regression models assessed independent effect of SOGI on screening adherence.ResultsPrevalence of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening varied significantly by SOGI. After adjusting for other variables, bisexual persons had significantly lower odds (odds ratio [OR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38-0.93) of breast cancer screening adherence. Lesbian or gay persons had significantly decreased likelihood (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.29-0.95) of cervical cancer screening adherence. Although rate of colorectal cancer screening adherence varied significantly by SOGI, we did not find an independent effect of SOGI and colorectal cancer screening adherence after adjusting for other variables. No independent effect of gender identity categories on breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening adherence was detected. Social determinants of health, such as health care access and insurance, that disproportionately disadvantaged bisexual individuals independently influenced screening adherence.ConclusionsSOGI can affect cancer screening adherence. Bisexual individuals had worse health care access and socioeconomic hardships among sexual and gender minorities. Given the independent effects of social determinants of health on cancer screening adherence, more attention needs to be paid to sexual and gender minorities, especially bisexual population.     

The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR): design and analysis plan.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has provided a mechanism for expanded coverage of selected promising technologies under its "coverage with evidence development (CED)" policy. The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) was designed to address the CED requirements for collection of clinical and demographic data to allow for CMS coverage of PET for previously noncovered cancer types and indications. The NOPR opened in May 2006. This report reviews the NOPR's data collection and analysis plan. METHODS: NOPR is a nationwide prospective internet-based registry. All PET facilities that are participating providers in the Medicare program may enroll in NOPR. The PET facility is responsible for collecting and entering patient data into the NOPR database through a Web application at: (http://www.cancerPETregistry.org/). Data are collected from the requesting physician on Pre-PET and Post-PET forms. The primary research goal is to assess the effect of PET on referring physicians' plans of intended patient management across the spectrum of expanded cancer indications (diagnosis, staging, restaging, suspected recurrence, and treatment monitoring). The NOPR investigators will have access to data only on cases in which both the patient and the referring physician have consented to allow their data to be used for research. Data will be analyzed and compared in aggregate for all cancers by category (e.g., staging) and then for specific high-impact types and indications (e.g., staging of pancreatic cancer) when 200 patients have been accrued to a specific combination or after the NOPR has been operational for 1 y. CONCLUSION: The NOPR will allow an accurate assessment of the impact of PET on intended patient management across a wide spectrum of cancer indications.     

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

PurposeTo explore the current state of teleradiology practice, defined as the interpretation of imaging examinations at a different facility from where the examination was performed.MethodsA 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.ResultsAmong 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.ConclusionDespite 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.