Cancer Imaging Fellowship Training: Utility and Added Value in the Modern Era

Body oncologic imaging subspecialty training a curriculum based on the experience in a tertiary cancer center

PURPOSE

To describe the structure of a dedicated body oncologic imaging fellowship program. To summarize the numbers and types of cross-sectional imaging examinations reported by fellows.

METHODS

The curriculum, training methods, and assessment measures utilized in the program were reviewed and described. An educational retrospective analysis was conducted. Data on the number of examinations interpreted by fellows, breakdown of modalities, and examinations by disease management team (DMT) were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 38 fellows completed the fellowship program during the study period. The median number of examinations reported per fellow was 2296 [interquartile range: 2148 - 2534], encompassing all oncology-relevant imaging modalities: CT 721 [646-786], MRI 1158 [1016-1309], ultrasound 256 [209-320] and PET/CT 176 [130-202]. The breakdown of examinations by DMT revealed variations in imaging patterns, with MRIs most frequently interpreted for genitourinary, musculoskeletal, and hepatobiliary cancers, and CTs most commonly for general staging or assessment of nonspecific symptoms.

CONCLUSION

This descriptive analysis may serve as a foundation for the development of similar fellowship programs and the advancement of body oncologic imaging. The volume and diversity of examinations reported by fellows highlights the comprehensive nature of body oncologic imaging.

Practice Characteristics of the United States General Radiologist Workforce: Most Generalists Work as Multispecialists

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

While subspecialty radiologists' practice patterns have received recent attention, little is known about the practice patterns of general radiologists. We aim to characterize this group (which represents most US radiologists).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

US radiologists' individual work efforts were assessed using the 2017 Medicare Provider and Other Supplier Public Use File and a previously validated wRVU-weighted claims-based classification system. Using prior criteria, radiologists without >50% work efforts in a single subspecialty were deemed generalists. For this study, a >25% subspecialty work effort threshold was deemed a subspecialty "focus area," and generalists with ≥2 subspecialty focus areas were deemed "multispecialists." Practice characteristics were summarized using various parameters.

RESULTS

Among 12,438 radiologists meeting existing claims-based criteria to be deemed generalists, 85.0% had ≥2 subspecialty focus areas of >25% work effort (i.e., multispecialists), 14.6% had one focus area, and 0.4% had no focus area. The fraction of generalists meeting multispecialist criteria was similar across radiologists' years in practice (range 84.7% to 85.4%), academic vs. nonacademic status (84.9% to 86.6%), and practice size (83.3% to 87.0%). Although general radiologist multispecialization varied geographically, a majority were multispecialists in all states (range 57.6% in VT to 93.9% in WY) and percentages were not associated with state-level population density (r = 0.013; p = 0.926).

CONCLUSION

The large majority of US general radiologists practice as multispecialists, and nearly all have at least one subspecialty focus area. The predominance of general radiologists' multispecialty focus across various practice types and locations supports their role in facilitating patient access to a range of radiologist subspecialties.