Search

Rationale and Objectives We implemented a rapid abridged multiphase (RAMP) breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol to reduce scan time and increase workflow efficiency. In this study, we compared delayed-phase kinetic analyses of benign and malignant lesions on the RAMP protocol versus a full dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI protocol. Materials and Methods Consecutive breast MRI examinations obtained from October 2015 to August 2016 with tissue diagnoses of suspicious MRI lesions were identified. RAMP MRI included one precontrast and two postcontrast phases. Full DCE MRI included one precontrast and at least three postcontrast phases. Lesion kinetic analyses including mean delayed-phase volume percentage of washout, predominant curve type, and worst curve type were assessed. Kinetic analyses assessed on RAMP and DCE MRI protocols were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Chi-Square test. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to discriminate benign and malignant lesions based on delayed-phase parameters. Results The study included 177 consecutive breast lesions (50 benign, 127 malignant) in 162 women. RAMP MRI (23 benign, 61 malignant) and DCE MRI examinations (27 benign, 66 malignant) demonstrated 8.4% vs 9.3% washout (p = 0.36) for benign lesions and 18.5% vs 17% washout (p = 0.66) for malignancies, respectively. There was no difference in the predominant and worst curve types for malignant and benign lesions or in area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for delayed-phased parameters between the two protocols (p > 0.05). Conclusion Lesion kinetic analyses from the RAMP MRI protocol can achieve the same discriminatory ability as the full DCE protocol. By reducing scan time, the RAMP MRI protocol improves patient comfort and enhances workflow efficiency and can be easily implemented in any clinical setting.

Rationale and Objectives Completing a systems-based practice project, equivalent to a practice quality improvement project (PQI), is a residency requirement by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and an American Board of Radiology milestone. The aim of this study was to assess the residents' perspectives on quality improvement projects in radiology. Materials and Methods Survey data were collected from 154 trainee members of the Association of University Radiologists to evaluate the residents' views on PQI. Results Most residents were aware of the requirement of completing a PQI project and had faculty mentors for their projects. Residents who thought it was difficult to find a mentor were more likely to start their project later in residency ( P P = .0091). Residents who rated the five surveyed PQI steps (coming up with an idea, finding a mentor, designing a project, finding resources, and finding time) as difficult steps were more likely to not have initiated a PQI project ( P P = .0046 for time). Conclusion We present five practical areas of improvement to make PQI a valuable learning experience: 1) Increasing awareness of PQI and providing ideas for projects, 2) encouraging faculty mentorship and publication, 3) educating residents about project design and implementation, 4) providing resources such as books and funds, and 5) allowing dedicated time.

Completing a systems-based practice project, equivalent to a practice quality improvement project (PQI), is a residency requirement by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and an American Board of Radiology milestone. The aim of this study was to assess the residents' perspectives on quality improvement projects in radiology.Survey data were collected from 154 trainee members of the Association of University Radiologists to evaluate the residents' views on PQI.Most residents were aware of the requirement of completing a PQI project and had faculty mentors for their projects. Residents who thought it was difficult to find a mentor were more likely to start their project later in residency (P.0001). Publication rates were low overall, and lack of time was considered the greatest obstacle. Having dedicated time for a PQI project was associated with increased likelihood of publishing or presenting the data (P = .0091). Residents who rated the five surveyed PQI steps (coming up with an idea, finding a mentor, designing a project, finding resources, and finding time) as difficult steps were more likely to not have initiated a PQI project (P.0001 for the first four and P = .0046 for time).We present five practical areas of improvement to make PQI a valuable learning experience: 1) Increasing awareness of PQI and providing ideas for projects, 2) encouraging faculty mentorship and publication, 3) educating residents about project design and implementation, 4) providing resources such as books and funds, and 5) allowing dedicated time.