Association of Parental Status and Gender With Burden of Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards Among Oncology Physicians

Balancing High Clinical Volumes and Non-RVU-generating Activities in Radiology, Part I: The Current Landscape

The Radiology Research Alliance (RRA) of the Association of Academic Radiology (AAR) convenes task forces to study trends that will shape the future of radiology. This article presents the findings of the AAR-RRA task force on balancing high clinical volumes and non-RVU-generating activities, which set out to analyze and underscore the full value of academic radiologists' contributions beyond RVU-generating clinical work. The Task Force's efforts are detailed in a two-part report. This first part describes the current landscape, while the second part focuses on future directions for academic radiology departments aiming to achieve a more optimal balance between high clinical volumes and non-RVU-generating activities.

Imaging-Based Disease Assessment and Management Recommendations: Impact of Multidisciplinary Sarcoma Tumor Board

Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) facilitate decision-making among subspecialists in the care of oncology patients, but the mechanisms by which they enhance outcomes remain incompletely understood. Our aim was to measure the agreement between sarcoma MTBs and radiology reports' disease assessment and management recommendations. This single-center IRB-approved retrospective study evaluated cases presented at a weekly sarcoma MTB from 1 August 2020 to 31 July 2021. Cases without clinical notes, imaging studies, or radiology reports were excluded. The data collected included the patient's clinical status at the time of the MTB, the treatment response assessment by the MTB and radiologists (stable disease; partial response; complete response; progressive disease/recurrence), and the recommendations of the radiology reports and of the MTB. The agreement between the initial radiologist review and MTB on disease assessment and recommendations was analyzed using kappa statistics. In total, 283 cases met the inclusion criteria. Radiology reports provided recommendations in 34.3% of cases, which were adhered to by the ordering providers in 73.2% of cases. The agreement between MTBs and radiology reports was moderate in disease assessment (86.2% agreement; κ = 0.78; p < 0.0001) and negligible in recommendations (36% agreement; κ = 0.18; p < 0.0001). Radiologists were more likely to assign progressive disease/recurrence than MTBs (54.4% vs. 44.4%; p < 0.001) and to recommend short-term imaging follow-up more commonly than MTBs (46.4% vs. 21.7%; p < 0.001). At a tertiary care center, radiologists' isolated interpretations of imaging findings and management recommendations frequently differ from the MTB's consensus, reflecting the value of multidisciplinary discussions incorporating the patient's clinical status and the available treatment options into the final radiographic assessment.