Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic Shifts Inpatient Imaging Utilization

ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on imaging utilization across practice settings. The purpose of this study was to quantify the change in the composition of inpatient imaging volumes for modality types and Current Procedural Terminology–coded groups during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA retrospective study of inpatient imaging volumes in a large health care system was performed, analyzing weekly imaging volumes by modality types (radiography, CT, MRI, ultrasound, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine) in years 2020 and 2019. The data set was split to compare pre-COVID-19 (weeks 1-9) and post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) periods. Further subanalyses compared early post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-13) and late post-COVID-19 (weeks 14-16) periods. Statistical comparisons were performed using χ² and independent-samples t tests.ResultsCompared with 2019, total inpatient imaging volume in 2020 post-COVID-19, early and late post-COVID-19 periods, declined by 13.6% (from 78,902 to 68,168), 16.6% (from 45,221 to 37,732), and 9.6% (from 33,681 to 30,436), respectively. By week 16, inpatient imaging volume rebounded and was only down 4.2% (from 11,003 to 10,546). However, a statistically significant shift (P < .0001) in the 2020 composition mix was observed largely comprised of radiography (74.3%), followed by CT (12.7%), ultrasound (8%), MRI (2.4%), interventional radiology (2.3%), and nuclear medicine (0.4%). Although the vast majority of imaging studies declined, few Current Procedural Terminology–coded groups showed increased trends in imaging volumes in the late post-COVID-19 period, including CT angiography chest, radiography chest, and ultrasound venous duplex.DiscussionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a decrease in inpatient imaging volumes accompanied by a shift away from cross-sectional imaging toward radiography. These findings could have significant implications in planning for a potential resurgence.     

Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic on Imaging Case Volumes

ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had significant economic impact on radiology with markedly decreased imaging case volumes. The purpose of this study was to quantify the imaging volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic across patient service locations and imaging modality types.MethodsImaging case volumes in a large health care system were retrospectively studied, analyzing weekly imaging volumes by patient service locations (emergency department, inpatient, outpatient) and modality types (x-ray, mammography, CT, MRI, ultrasound, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine) in years 2020 and 2019. The data set was split to compare pre-COVID-19 (weeks 1-9) and post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) periods. Independent-samples t tests compared the mean weekly volumes in 2020 and 2019.ResultsTotal imaging volume in 2020 (weeks 1-16) declined by 12.29% (from 522,645 to 458,438) compared with 2019. Post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) revealed a greater decrease (28.10%) in imaging volumes across all patient service locations (range 13.60%-56.59%) and modality types (range 14.22%-58.42%). Total mean weekly volume in 2020 post-COVID-19 (24,383 [95% confidence interval 19,478-29,288]) was statistically reduced (P = .003) compared with 33,913 [95% confidence interval 33,429-34,396] in 2019 across all patient service locations and modality types. The greatest decline in 2020 was seen at week 16 specifically for outpatient imaging (88%) affecting all modality types: mammography (94%), nuclear medicine (85%), MRI (74%), ultrasound (64%), interventional (56%), CT (46%), and x-ray (22%).DiscussionBecause the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic remains uncertain, these results may assist in guiding short- and long-term practice decisions based on the magnitude of imaging volume decline across different patient service locations and specific imaging modality types.     

Radiology Imaging Volume Changes During Discrete COVID-19 Pandemic Waves: Implications for the Delta Variant of Coronavirus and Future Pandemics

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate radiology imaging volumes at distinct time periods throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a function of regional COVID-19 hospitalizations.MethodsRadiology imaging volumes and statewide COVID-19 hospitalizations were collected, and four 28-day time periods throughout the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 were analyzed: pre–COVID-19 in January, the “first wave” of COVID-19 hospitalizations in April, the “recovery” time period in the summer of 2020 with a relative nadir of COVID-19 hospitalizations, and the “third wave” of COVID-19 hospitalizations in November. Imaging studies were categorized as inpatient, outpatient, or emergency department on the basis of patient location at the time of acquisition. A Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare daily imaging volumes during each discrete 28-day time period.ResultsImaging volumes overall during the first wave of COVID-19 infections were 55% (11,098/20,011; P < .001) of pre–COVID-19 imaging volumes. Overall imaging volumes returned during the recovery time period to 99% (19,915/20,011; P = .725), and third-wave imaging volumes compared with the pre–COVID-19 period were significantly lower in the emergency department at 88.8% (7,951/8,955; P < .001), significantly higher for outpatients at 115.7% (8,818/7,621; P = .008), not significantly different for inpatients at 106% (3,650/3,435; P = .053), and overall unchanged when aggregated together at 102% (20,419/20,011; P = .629).ConclusionsMedical imaging rebounded after the first wave of COVID-19 hospitalizations, with relative stability of utilization over the ensuing phases of the pandemic. As widespread COVID-19 vaccination continues to occur, future surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations will likely have a negligible impact on imaging utilization.     

Increased per-patient imaging utilization in an emergency department setting during COVID-19

IntroductionCOVID-19 has resulted in decreases in absolute imaging volumes, however imaging utilization on a per-patient basis has not been reported. Here we compare per-patient imaging utilization, characterized by imaging studies and work relative value units (wRVUs), in an emergency department (ED) during a COVID-19 surge to the same period in 2019.MethodsThis retrospective study included patients presenting to the ED from April 1–May 1, 2020 and 2019. Patients were stratified into three primary subgroups: all patients (n = 9580, n = 5686), patients presenting with respiratory complaints (n = 1373, n = 2193), and patients presenting without respiratory complaints (n = 8207, n = 3493). The primary outcome was imaging studies/patient and wRVU/patient. Secondary analysis was by disposition and COVID status. Comparisons were via the Wilcoxon rank-sum or Chi-squared tests.ResultsThe total patients, imaging exams, and wRVUs during the 2020 and 2019 periods were 5686 and 9580 (−41%), 6624 and 8765 (−24%), and 4988 and 7818 (−36%), respectively, and the percentage patients receiving any imaging was 67% and 51%, respectively (p < .0001). In 2020 there was a 170% relative increase in patients presenting with respiratory complaints. In 2020, patients without respiratory complaints generated 24% more wRVU/patient (p < .0001) and 33% more studies/patient (p < .0001), highlighted by 38% more CTs/patient.ConclusionWe report increased per-patient imaging utilization in an emergency department during COVID-19, particularly in patients without respiratory complaints.     

Recovery of outpatient imaging utilization during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

ObjectiveDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, Radiology practices experienced marked reductions in outpatient imaging volumes. Our purpose was to evaluate the timing, rate, and degree of recovery of outpatient imaging during the first wave of the pandemic. We also sought to ascertain the relationship of outpatient imaging recovery to the incidence of COVID-19 cases.MethodsRetrospective study of outpatient imaging volumes in a large healthcare system was performed from January 1, 2019-August 25, 2020. Dataset was split to compare Pre-COVID (weeks 1–9), Peak-COVID (weeks 10–15) and Recovery-COVID (weeks 16–34) periods. Chi-square and Independent-samples t-tests compared weekly outpatient imaging volumes in 2020 and 2019. Regression analyses assessed the rate of decline and recovery in Peak-COVID and Recovery-COVID periods, respectively.ResultsTotal outpatient imaging volume in 2020 (weeks 1–34) was 327,738 exams, compared to 440,314 in 2019. The 2020 mean weekly imaging volumes were significantly decreased in Peak-COVID (p = 0.0148) and Recovery-COVID (p = 0.0003) periods. Mean weekly decline rate was −2580 exams/week and recovery rate was +617 exams/week. The 2020 Post-COVID (weeks 10–34) period had an average decrease of 36.5% (4813.4/13,178.6) imaging exams/week and total estimated decrease of 120,335 exams. Significant inverse correlation (−0.8338, p < 0.0001) was seen between positive-tested COVID-19 cases and imaging utilization with 1-week lag during Post-COVID (weeks 10–34) period.ConclusionRecovery of outpatient imaging volume during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic showed a gradual return to pre-pandemic levels over the course of 3–4 months. The rate of imaging utilization was inversely associated with new positive-tested COVID-19 cases with a 1-week lag.     

Exacerbation of Inequities in Use of Diagnostic Radiology During the Early Stages of Reopening After COVID-19

ObjectiveAssess diagnostic radiology examination utilization and associated social determinants of health during the early stages of reopening after state-mandated shutdown of nonurgent services because of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsThis institutional review board–approved, retrospective study assessed all patients with diagnostic radiology examinations performed at an academic medical center with eight affiliated outpatient facilities before (January 1, 2020, to March 8, 2020) and after (June 7, 2020, to July 15, 2020) the COVID-19 shutdown. Examinations during the shut down (March 9, 2020, to June 6, 2020) were excluded. Patient-specific factors (eg, race, ethnicity), imaging modalities, and care settings were extracted from the Research Data Warehouse. Primary outcome was the number of diagnostic radiology examinations per day compared pre- and post-COVID-19 shutdown. Univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression determined features associated with completing an examination.ResultsDespite resumption of nonurgent services, marked decrease in radiology examination utilization persisted in all care settings post-COVID-19 shutdown (869 examinations per day preshutdown [59,080 examinations in 68 days] versus 502 examinations per day postshutdown [19,594 examinations in 39 days]), with more significantly decreased odds ratios for having examinations in inpatient and outpatient settings versus in the emergency department. Inequities worsened, with patients from communities with high rates of poverty, unemployment, and chronic disease having significantly lower odds of undergoing radiology examinations post-COVID-19 shutdown. Patients of Asian race and Hispanic ethnicity had significantly lower odds ratios for having examinations post-COVID-19 shutdown compared with White and non-Hispanic patients, respectively.DiscussionThe COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated known pre-existing inequities in diagnostic radiology utilization. Resources should be allocated to address subgroups of patients who may be less likely to receive necessary diagnostic radiology examinations, potentially leading to compromised patient safety and quality of care.     

Identifying Factors Important to Patients for Resuming Elective Imaging During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PurposeTo identify factors important to patients for their return to elective imaging during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsIn all, 249 patients had elective MRIs postponed from March 23, 2020, to April 24, 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of these patients, 99 completed a 22-question survey about living arrangement and health care follow-up, effect of imaging postponement, safety of imaging, and factors important for elective imaging. Mann-Whitney U, Fisher’s exact, χ² tests, and logistic regression analyses were performed. Statistical significance was set to P ≤ .05 with Bonferroni correction applied.ResultsOverall, 68% of patients felt imaging postponement had no impact or a small impact on health, 68% felt it was fairly or extremely safe to obtain imaging, and 53% thought there was no difference in safety between hospital-based and outpatient locations. Patients who already had imaging performed or rescheduled were more likely to feel it was safe to get an MRI (odds ratio [OR] 3.267, P = .028) and that the hospital setting was safe (OR 3.976, P = .004). Staff friendliness was the most important factor related to an imaging center visit (95% fairly or extremely important). Use of masks by staff was the top infection prevention measure (94% fairly or extremely important). Likelihood of rescheduling imaging decreased if a short waiting time was important (OR = 0.107, P = .030).ConclusionAs patients begin to feel that it is safe to obtain imaging examinations during the COVID-19 pandemic, many factors important to their imaging experience can be considered by radiology practices when developing new strategies to conduct elective imaging.     

Acute Appendicitis During Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Changes in Clinical Presentation and CT Findings

BackgroundQuarantine and stay-at-home orders are strategies that many countries used during the acute pandemic period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to prevent disease dissemination, health system overload, and mortality. However, there are concerns that patients did not seek necessary health care because of these mandates.PurposeTo evaluate the differences in the clinical presentation of acute appendicitis and CT findings related to these cases between the COVID-19 acute pandemic period and nonpandemic period.Materials and MethodsA retrospective observational study was performed to compare the acute pandemic period (March 23, 2020, to May 4, 2020) versus the same period the year before (March 23, 2019, to May 4, 2019). The proportion of appendicitis diagnosed by CT and level of severity of the disease were reviewed in each case. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to identify significant differences between the two groups.ResultsA total of 196 abdominal CT scans performed due to suspected acute appendicitis were evaluated: 55 from the acute pandemic period and 141 from the nonpandemic period. The proportion of acute appendicitis diagnosed by abdominal CT was higher in the acute pandemic period versus the nonpandemic period: 45.5% versus 29.8% (P = .038). The severity of the diagnosed appendicitis was higher during the acute pandemic period: 92% versus 57.1% (P = .003).ConclusionDuring the acute COVID-19 pandemic period, fewer patients presented with acute appendicitis to the emergency room, and those who did presented at a more severe stage of the disease.     

Trends in Academic Productivity Among Radiologists During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PurposeThere is a scarcity of literature examining changes in radiologist research productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The current study aimed to investigate changes in academic productivity as measured by publication volume before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis single-center, retrospective cohort study included the publication data of 216 researchers consisting of associate professors, assistant professors, and professors of radiology. Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test was used to identify changes in publication volume between the 1-year-long defined prepandemic period (publications between May 1, 2019, and April 30, 2020) and COVID-19 pandemic period (May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021).ResultsThere was a significantly increased mean annual volume of publications in the pandemic period (5.98, SD = 7.28) compared with the prepandemic period (4.98, SD = 5.53) (z = ?2.819, P = .005). Subset analysis demonstrated a similar (17.4%) increase in publication volume for male researchers when comparing the mean annual prepandemic publications (5.10, SD = 5.79) compared with the pandemic period (5.99, SD = 7.60) (z = ?2.369, P = .018). No statistically significant changes were found in similar analyses with the female subset.DiscussionSignificant increases in radiologist publication volume were found during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the year before. Changes may reflect an overall increase in academic productivity in response to clinical and imaging volume ramp down.     

Characteristics of COVID-19 Community Practice Declines in Noninvasive Diagnostic Imaging Professional Work

PurposeThe operational and financial impact of the widespread coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) curtailment of imaging services on radiology practices is unknown. We aimed to characterize recent COVID-19-related community practice noninvasive diagnostic imaging professional work declines.MethodsUsing imaging metadata from nine community radiology practices across the United States between January 2019 and May 2020, we mapped work relative value unit (wRVU)-weighted stand-alone noninvasive diagnostic imaging service codes to both modality and body region. Weekly 2020 versus 2019 wRVU changes were analyzed by modality, body region, and site of service. Practice share χ² testing was performed.ResultsAggregate weekly wRVUs ranged from a high of 120,450 (February 2020) to a low of 55,188 (April 2020). During that −52% wRVU nadir, outpatient declines were greatest (−66%). All practices followed similar aggregate trends in the distribution of wRVUs between each 2020 versus 2019 week (P = .96-.98). As a percentage of total all-practice wRVUs, declines in CT (20,046 of 63,992; 31%) and radiography and fluoroscopy (19,196; 30%) were greatest. By body region, declines in abdomen and pelvis (16,203; 25%) and breast (12,032; 19%) imaging were greatest. Mammography (−17%) and abdominal and pelvic CT (−14%) accounted for the largest shares of total all-practice wRVU reductions. Across modality-region groups, declines were far greatest for mammography (−92%).ConclusionsSubstantial COVID-19-related diagnostic imaging work declines were similar across community practices and disproportionately impacted mammography. Decline patterns could facilitate pandemic second wave planning. Overall implications for practice workflows, practice finances, patient access, and payment policy are manifold.     

Pulmonary embolism severity before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives:Early in the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a high frequency of pulmonary embolism was identified. This audit aims to assess the frequency and severity of pulmonary embolism in 2020 compared to 2019.Methods:In this retrospective audit, we compared computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) frequency and pulmonary embolism severity in April and May 2020, compared to 2019. Pulmonary embolism severity was assessed with the Modified Miller score and the presence of right heart strain was assessed. Demographic information and 30-day mortality was identified from electronic health records.Results:In April 2020, there was a 17% reduction in the number of CTPA performed and an increase in the proportion identifying pulmonary embolism (26%, n = 68/265 vs 15%, n = 47/320, p < 0.001), compared to April 2019. Patients with pulmonary embolism in 2020 had more comorbidities (p = 0.026), but similar age and sex compared to 2019. There was no difference in pulmonary embolism severity in 2020 compared to 2019, but there was an increased frequency of right heart strain in May 2020 (29 vs 12%, p = 0.029). Amongst 18 patients with COVID-19 and pulmonary embolism, there was a larger proportion of males and an increased 30 day mortality (28% vs 6%, p = 0.008).Conclusion:During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a reduction in the number of CTPA scans performed and an increase in the frequency of CTPA scans positive for pulmonary embolism. Patients with both COVID-19 and pulmonary embolism had an increased risk of 30-day mortality compared to those without COVID-19.Advances in knowledge:During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of CTPA performed decreased and the proportion of positive CTPA increased. Patients with both pulmonary embolism and COVID-19 had worse outcomes compared to those with pulmonary embolism alone.     

COVID-19 and Breast Radiologist Wellness: Impact of Gender,Financial Loss,and Childcare Need

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the emotional and financial impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on breast radiologists to understand potential consequences on physician wellness and gender disparities in radiology.MethodsA 41-question survey was distributed from June to September 2020 to members of the Society of Breast Imaging and the National Consortium of Breast Centers. Psychological distress and financial loss scores were calculated on the basis of survey responses and compared across gender and age subgroups. A multivariate logistic model was used to identify factors associated with psychological distress scores.ResultsA total of 628 surveys were completed (18% response rate); the mean respondent age was 52 ± 10 years, and 79% were women. Anxiety was reported by 68% of respondents, followed by sadness (41%), sleep problems (36%), anger (25%), and depression (23%). A higher psychological distress score correlated with female gender (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; P = .001), younger age (OR, 0.8 per SD; P = .005), and a higher financial loss score (OR, 1.4; P < .0001). Participants whose practices had not initiated wellness efforts specific to COVID-19 (54%) had higher psychological distress scores (OR, 1.4; P = .03). Of those with children at home, 38% reported increased childcare needs, higher in women than men (40% versus 29%, P < .001). Thirty-seven percent reported that childcare needs had adversely affected their jobs, which correlated with higher psychological distress scores (OR, 2.2-3.3; P < .05).ConclusionsPsychological distress was highest among younger and female respondents and those with greater pandemic-specific childcare needs and financial loss. Practice-initiated COVID-19-specific wellness efforts were associated with decreased psychological distress. Policies are needed to mitigate pandemic-specific burnout and worsening gender disparities.     

BI-RADS-0 Screening Mammography: Risk Factors That Prevent or Delay Follow-Up Time to Diagnostic Evaluation

ObjectiveBI-RADS 0 screening mammograms require follow-up diagnostic imaging, optimally within 60 days. Our study aims to identify risk factors for delayed follow-up.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective case-control study of individuals who had a nondiagnostic BI-RADS 0 screening mammogram between March 19, 2018, and March 19, 2020. Sociodemographic information was collected from a self-reported questionnaire. We aimed to identify factors associated with <60-day follow-up, >60-day follow-up, or no follow-up outcomes. The χ² test and univariate logistic regressions were performed. Significant variables were included in multinomial logistic regression. We also aimed to identify risk factors that lead to delayed follow-up times among individuals with follow-up. Spearman’s correlation and Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed.ResultsReview returned 5,034 screening mammograms. Of 4,552 individuals included, 904 (19.9%) had no follow-up. Of the 3,648 (80.1%) with follow-up, 2,797 (76.7%) had a follow-up <60 days (median 20 days) and 851 (23.3%) had follow-up >60 days (median 176 days). Multinomial regression found that Asian (P = .022), Black (P < .0001), and individuals who identified their race as other (P < .0001) were independently more likely to have no or >60-day follow-up. Individuals who did not report their race (P = .001) or completed the questionnaire in Spanish (P = .025) were more likely to have no or >60-day follow-up. Among individuals with follow-up, Black individuals (P < .0001), those who identified their race as other (P < .0001), Hispanic individuals (P = .04), and those who completed the questionnaire in Spanish (P < .0001) had follow-up delays. BRCA-positive individuals had shorter follow-up times (P = .021).DiscussionFollow-up time is affected by cancer risk factors such as BRCA status in addition to race, preferred language, and Hispanic ethnicity.     

Nationwide Outcomes following Percutaneous Cholecystostomy for Acute Calculous Cholecystitis and the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019: Results of the Multicentre Audit of Cholecystostomy and Further Interventions (MACAFI study)

PurposeTo assess the mortality, readmission rates, and practice variation of percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) in patients with acute calculous cholecystitis in the United Kingdom (UK).Materials and MethodsA total of 1,186 consecutive patients (636 men [53.6%]; median age, 75 years; range, 24–102 years) who underwent PC for acute calculous cholecystitis between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020, were included from 36 UK hospitals. The exclusion criteria were diagnostic aspirations, absence of acute calculous cholecystitis, and age less than 16 years. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown was declared on March 26, 2020, in the UK, which served to distinguish among groups.ResultsMost patients (66.3%) underwent PC as definitive treatment, whereas 31.3% underwent PC as a bridge to surgery. The overall 30-day readmission rate was 42.2% (500/1,186), and the 30-day mortality was 9.1% (108/1,186). Centers performing fewer than 30 PCs per year had higher 90-day mortality than those performing more than 60 (19.3% vs 11.0%, respectively; P = .006). A greater proportion of patients presented with complicated acute calculous cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to prior (49.9% vs 40.9%, respectively; P = .007), resulting in more PCs (61.3 vs 37.9 per month, respectively; P < .001). More PCs were performed in tertiary hospitals than in district general hospitals (9 vs 3 per 100 beds, respectively; P < .001), with a greater proportion performed as a bridge to surgery (50.5% vs 22.8%, respectively; P < .001).ConclusionsThe practice of PC is highly variable throughout the UK. The readmission rates are high, and there is significant correlation between mortality and PC case volume.     

Effectiveness and Safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms from Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Men with Concurrent Localized Prostate Cancer

PurposeTo assess the effectiveness and safety of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in the setting of localized prostate cancer (PCa).Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective, single-center, institutional review board-approved study from December 2016 to June 2020 of 21 patients (median age, 72; range, 63–83 years) with moderate LUTS and localized PCa. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated at 6 and 12 weeks using International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) improvement. Seventeen patients were scheduled to receive definitive radiotherapy (RT) after PAE; 13 patients completed RT. Short-term imaging signs of oncologic progression were evaluated at 6 and 12 weeks defined by at least one of the following on magnetic resonance imaging: increased Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of index lesion(s) to at least 4, new extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle involvement, or pelvic lymphadenopathy. Nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analysis.ResultsIPSS improved by a median of 12 (n = 19, P < .0001) and 14 (n = 14, P < .0001) at 6 and 12 weeks, respectively. QoL improved by a median of 2 (n = 19, P < .0001) and 3 (n = 3, P < .0001) at 6 and 12 weeks. Prostate volume decreased by a median of 24% (n = 19, P < .0001) and 36% (n = 12, P = .015) at 6 and 12 weeks. No patients demonstrated disease progression at 6 (n = 16) or 12 (n = 8) weeks by imaging. No patients experienced increased prostate-specific antigen after RT, grade ≥3 adverse events, or greater genitourinary toxicity.ConclusionsPAE is effective and safe for the treatment of men with LUTS from benign prostatic hyperplasia in the setting of concomitant, localized, non-obstructive PCa.     

The impact of COVID-19 quarantine efforts on emergency radiology and trauma cases

ObjectiveAmidst COVID-19 pandemic, many states have issued stay at home advisories and non-essential business closures to limit public exposure. During this “quarantine” period, it is important to understand the volume and types of emergency/trauma radiology cases to better prepare for the continuing and future pandemics. This study demonstrates new trends in pathologies and an overall increase in positive exams.MethodsA retrospective review of emergency department's imaging during the initial two weeks of this state's quarantine period, 3/23/2020–4/5/2020 was compared to similar dates of the previous year (“pre-quarantine” period), 3/25/2019–4/7/2019. One thousand emergency radiology and 991 trauma cases were evaluated. Of the emergency radiology cases 500 studies from each period were assessed, and from the trauma cases, 783 cases from pre-quarantine and 315 from the quarantine period were examined. Chi-square analysis was performed to assess for statistical significance.ResultsOverall there were 43.0% fewer emergency radiology studies performed during the quarantine period (n = 4530) compared to pre-quarantine period (n = 2585). Additionally, the number of positive cases was significantly higher (P = 0.0001) during the quarantine period (43.0%) compared to the pre-quarantine period (30.2%). Several trends in types of trauma were observed, including a significant increase in domestic violence during the quarantine period (P = 0.0081).DiscussionDifferent volumes and types of emergency/trauma imaging cases were observed during the recent quarantine period. Findings may assist emergency radiology departments to plan for future pandemics or COVID-19 resurgences by offering evidence of the types and volume of emergency radiology cases one might expect.     

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.     

Patients characteristics related to screening mammography cancellation and rescheduling rates during the COVID-19 pandemic

PurposeTo identify patient characteristics associated with screening mammography cancellations and rescheduling during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsScheduled screening mammograms during three time periods were retrospectively reviewed: state-mandated shutdown (3/17/2020-6/16/2020) during which screening mammography was cancelled, a period of 2 months immediately after screening mammography resumed (6/17/2020-8/16/2020), and a representative period prior to COVID-19 (6/17/2019-8/16/2019). Relative risk of cancellation before COVID-19 and after reopening was compared for age, race/ethnicity, insurance, history of chronic disease, and exam location, controlling for other collected variables. Risk of failure to reschedule was similarly compared between all 3 time periods.ResultsOverall cancellation rate after reopening was higher than before shutdown (7663/16595, 46% vs 5807/15792, 37%; p < 0.001). Relative risk of cancellation after reopening increased with age (1.20 vs 1.27 vs 1.36 for ages at 25th, 50th, and 75th quartile or 53, 61, and 70 years, respectively, p < 0.001). Relative risk of cancellation was also higher among Medicare patients (1.41) compared to Medicaid and those with other providers (1.26 and 1.21, respectively, p < 0.001) and non-whites compared to whites (1.34 vs 1.25, p = 0.03). Rescheduling rate during shutdown was higher than before COVID-19 and after reopening for all patients (10,658/13593, 78%, 3569/5807, 61%, and 4243/7663, respectively, 55%, p < 0.001). Relative risk of failure to reschedule missed mammogram was higher in hospitals compared to outpatient settings both during shutdown and after reopening (0.62 vs 0.54, p = 0.005 and 1.29 vs 1.03, p < 0.001, respectively).ConclusionMinority race/ethnicity, Medicare insurance, and advanced age were associated with increased risk of screening mammogram cancellation during COVID-19.     

Trends in imaging utilization for small cell lung cancer: a decision tree analysis of the NCCN guidelines

PurposeTo investigate the differences in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) diagnostic imaging utilization relative to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed SCLC records at our institution between January 1, 2003 and August 1, 2019 (n = 529). Patients were grouped by extensive-stage versus limited-stage and diagnosis date. Clinical, CT, MRI, and nuclear imaging data was collected. Imaging utilization was compared using Student's t-test or Kruskal-Wallis-test/Wilcoxon-Rank-Sums test. Survival was compared using Log-rank-test and Kaplan-Meier-curves.ResultsSCLC patients had a median survival of 290 days. Extensive-stage patients with SCLC demonstrated an increase in emergency imaging utilization when diagnosed in 2011–2019 compared to 2003–2010 (CT abdomen/pelvis p < 0.001, CTA chest for pulmonary embolism p < 0.01, CT head p < 0.003). Limited-stage patients with SCLC demonstrated an increase in inpatient imaging utilization (CT abdomen/pelvis p < 0.04) and decreased total/outpatient imaging utilization (CT chest-abdomen-pelvis p < 0.05, CT head p < 0.003) when diagnosed in 2011–2019 compared to 2003–2010. All patients with SCLC had decreased average number of bone-scan studies when diagnosed in 2011–2019 compared to 2003–2010 (Extensive-stage p < 0.006, Limited-stage p < 0.0006).ConclusionImaging utilization trends in the management of patients with SCLC at our institution differed between 2003 and 2010 and 2011–2019 reflecting the changes in the NCCN guidelines.