A Roadmap for Personalized Care in Radiology

Relationship Between Breast Ultrasound Background Echotexture and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Background Parenchymal Enhancement and the Effect of Hormonal Status Thereon

We studied the relationship between breast ultrasound background echotexture (BET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and whether this relationship varied with hormonal status and amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) on MRI. Two hundred eighty-three Korean women (52.1 years; range = 27-79 years) with newly diagnosed primary breast cancer who underwent preoperative breast ultrasound and MRI were retrospectively studied. Background echotexture, BPE, and FGT were classified into 4 categories, and age, menopausal status, menstrual cycle regularity, and menstrual cycle stage at MRI were recorded. Background echotexture and BPE relationship was assessed overall, and in menopausal, FGT, menstrual cycle regularity, and menstrual cycle stage subgroups. Background echotexture and BPE correlated in women overall, and menopausal, FGT, and menstrual cycle subgroups and those in the first half of the cycle (all P < 0.001). Background echotexture reflects BPE, regardless of menopausal status, menstrual cycle regularity, and FGT and may be a biomarker of breast cancer risk.

A Randomized Study of Patient Risk Perception for Incidental Renal Findings on Diagnostic Imaging Tests

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to assess differences in patient distress, risk perception, and treatment preferences for incidental renal findings with descriptive versus combined descriptive and numeric graphical risk information.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized survey study was conducted for adult patients about to undergo outpatient imaging studies at a large urban academic institution. Two survey arms contained either descriptive or a combination of descriptive and numeric graphical risk information about three hypothetical incidental renal findings at CT: 2-cm (low risk) and 5-cm (high risk) renal tumors and a 2-cm (low risk) renal artery aneurysm. The main outcomes were patient distress, perceived risk (qualitative and quantitative), treatment preference, and valuation of lesion discovery.

RESULTS

Of 374 patients, 299 participated (79.9% response rate). With inclusion of numeric and graphical, rather than only descriptive, risk information about disease progression for a 2-cm renal tumor, patients reported less worry (3.56 vs 4.12 on a 5-point scale; p < 0.001) and favored surgical consultation less often (29.3% vs 46.9%; p = 0.003). The proportion choosing surgical consultation for the 2-cm renal tumor decreased to a similar level as for the renal artery aneurysm with numeric risk information (29.3% [95% CI, 21.7-36.8%] and 27.9% [95% CI, 20.5-35.3%], respectively). Patients overestimated the absolute risk of adverse events regardless of risk information type, but significantly more so when given descriptive information only, and valued the discovery of lesions regardless of risk information type (range, 4.41-4.81 on a 5-point scale).

CONCLUSION

Numeric graphical risk communication for patients about incidental renal lesions may facilitate accurate risk comprehension and support patients in informed decision making.

Development of a Standardized Kalamazoo Communication Skills Assessment Tool for Radiologists: Validation, Multisource Reliability, and Lessons Learned

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop and test a standardized communication skills assessment instrument for radiology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Delphi method was used to validate the Kalamazoo Communication Skills Assessment instrument for radiology by revising and achieving consensus on the 43 items of the preexisting instrument among an interdisciplinary team of experts consisting of five radiologists and four nonradiologists (two men, seven women). Reviewers assessed the applicability of the instrument to evaluation of conversations between radiology trainees and trained actors portraying concerned parents in enactments about bad news, radiation risks, and diagnostic errors that were video recorded during a communication workshop. Interrater reliability was assessed by use of the revised instrument to rate a series of enactments between trainees and actors video recorded in a hospital-based simulator center. Eight raters evaluated each of seven different video-recorded interactions between physicians and parent-actors.

RESULTS

The final instrument contained 43 items. After three review rounds, 42 of 43 (98%) items had an average rating of relevant or very relevant for bad news conversations. All items were rated as relevant or very relevant for conversations about error disclosure and radiation risk. Reliability and rater agreement measures were moderate. The intraclass correlation coefficient range was 0.07-0.58; mean, 0.30; SD, 0.13; and median, 0.30. The range of weighted kappa values was 0.03-0.47; mean, 0.23; SD, 0.12; and median, 0.22. Ratings varied significantly among conversations (χ²₆ = 1186; p < 0.0001) and varied significantly by viewing order, rater type, and rater sex.

CONCLUSION

The adapted communication skills assessment instrument is highly relevant for radiology, having moderate interrater reliability. These findings have important implications for assessing the relational competencies of radiology trainees.

Exome and Genome Sequencing and Parallels in Radiology: Searching for Patient-Centered Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings

Incidental and secondary findings have become an important by-product of diagnostic testing, and their ramifications affect clinical care, research, and policy. Given parallels in the reporting and management of such findings on diagnostic imaging, radiologists may draw from ongoing discussions in medical genetics to rethink more patient-centered approaches to analogous clinical, ethical, and medicolegal dilemmas. Low-risk incidental findings in particular may be drivers of unnecessary testing, invasive procedures, and overtreatment, with associated financial, psychological, and clinical consequences. As radiologists act in patients' best interests by strengthening standardized guidelines on how each finding merits further diagnostic testing or treatment, perhaps the greatest challenge for producing such guidelines is for low-risk incidental findings, for which adverse consequences are unlikely but associated with substantial uncertainty because of the lack of strong evidence on which to base the recommendations. More uniform recommendations for managing low-risk radiologic incidental findings should therefore aim to provide reasonable options that apply across a spectrum of patient preferences. These will require evaluation through research and will ultimately influence the quality of care. Specific areas for exploration may include (1) better gauging of patient attitudes and preferences regarding low-risk incidental findings, (2) using patient preferences to inform more uniform recommendations for low-risk findings that apply across a spectrum of preferences and help guide shared decision making, and (3) when patients endorse a strong preference not to discover low-risk incidental findings, how it might be possible for professional standards to curtail their generation in specific circumstances.