Search

Objective: Determine predictors of self-reported burnout among academic radiologists., Methods: In 2017, radiologists at an urban medical center completed the Stanford Wellness Survey, rating burnout via Likert scale (0: no burnout; 1: occasional stress, no burnout; 2: one or more burnout symptoms; 3: persistent burnout symptoms; 4: completely burned out). Univariate analyses assessed age, gender, family situation, clinical versus research focus, and academic rank for association with burnout (Likert scale ≥ 2). Responses in 11 domains querying definitions of burnout (professional fulfillment, emotional exhaustion, interpersonal disengagement), individual factors (sleep-related impairment, self-compassion, negative work impact on personal relationships), institutional factors (perceived appreciation, control over schedule, organizational or personal values alignment, electronic health record experience, supervisor's leadership quality) were evaluated for association with burnout, using χ 2 and logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs)., Results: In 159 of 204 (77.9%) completed radiologist surveys, 35.2% (56 of 159) reported burnout. Age < 40 years (P = .0068) and clinical focus (P = .0111) were significantly associated with burnout. In univariate analysis, all domains except electronic health record were statistically significant: emotional exhaustion (OR = 1.93, P < .0001); professional fulfillment (OR = 0.78, P < .0001); self-compassion (OR = 1.36, P < .0001); perceived appreciation (OR = 0.78, P < .0001); sleep-related impairment (OR = 1.20, P < .0001); supervisor's leadership quality (OR = 0.91, P < .0001); interpersonal disengagement (OR = 1.31, P < .0001); organizational or personal values alignment (OR = 0.87, P = .0004); negative work impact on personal relationships (OR = 1.10, P = .0070); control over schedule (OR = 0.80, P = .0054); electronic health record experience (OR=1.03, P = .5392)., Discussion: Nearly all questions significantly predicted self-reported burnout, observed in over one-third of academic radiologists. Younger age and clinical focus were associated with burnout. Initiatives targeting individual factors (eg, sleep impairment, self-compassion) and institutional factors (eg, physician appreciation, leadership-faculty interactions) may reduce burnout., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Cytological evaluation of pancreatic or biliary duct brushings is a specific, but insensitive, test for malignancy. We compared adjunctive molecular testing with next-generation sequencing (NGS) relative to fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for detection of high-risk neoplasia or malignancy. Bile duct brushings from 81 specimens were subjected to cytological analysis, FISH using the UroVysion probe set, and targeted NGS. Specimens were placed into negative/atypical (negative) or suspicious/positive (positive) categories depending on cytology and negative or positive categories on the basis of FISH and NGS results. Performance characteristics for each diagnostic modality were calculated on the basis of clinicopathologic follow-up and compared in a receiver operating characteristic analysis. There were 33 high-risk neoplasia/malignant strictures (41%) and 48 benign (59%). NGS revealed driver mutations in 24 cases (30%), including KRAS (21 of 24 cases), TP53 (14 of 24 cases), SMAD4 (6 of 24 cases), and CDKN2A (4 of 24 cases). Cytology had a sensitivity of 67% (95% CI, 48%-82%) and a specificity of 98% (95% CI, 89%-100%). When added to cytology, NGS increased the sensitivity to 85% (95% CI, 68%-95%), leading to a significant increase in the area under the curve in a receiver operating characteristic analysis (P = 0.03). FISH increased the sensitivity to 76% (95% CI, 58%-89%), without significantly increasing the area under the curve. These results suggest that ancillary NGS testing offers advantages over FISH, although studies with larger cohorts are needed to verify these findings., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)