Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R Edward Hendrick

Publications and source records attributed to R Edward Hendrick.

21 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

How to optimize clinical breast MR imaging practices and techniques on Your 1.5-T system.

Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, when used in conjunction with mammography and ultrasonography, can be a powerful tool for breast imaging. There are various clinical scenarios in which MR imaging may provide key information that leads to an alteration in treatment plans (eg, by demonstrating features that were occult at physical examination or conventional imaging). Although many benign and malignant entities enhance at contrast material-enhanced breast MR imaging, the morphologic characteristics and kinetic profiles of lesions help narrow the differential diagnosis. To optimize the quality of the morphologic and kinetic information yielded by breast MR imaging, the radiologist must attend to various practical and technical prerequisites: A bilateral breast coil should be used with prone positioning of the patient. An MR imaging system with a high-field-strength magnet is needed, and the magnetic field must be homogeneous across the field of view, which should include both breasts. A T2-weighted sequence should be applied first to identify any cysts and should be followed by three-dimensional imaging with a T1-weighted spoiled gradient-echo sequence after the intravenous administration of a gadolinium chelate. To minimize artifacts, a direction other than the anterior-posterior direction should be selected for phase encoding. To suppress the signal from fat, a frequency-selective pulse should be applied during imaging, or the unenhanced MR imaging data should be subtracted from the contrast-enhanced MR imaging data during postprocessing. The imaging section thickness should be 3 mm or less, the pixel size should be less than 1 mm in each in-plane direction, and the total acquisition time should be less than 2 minutes.

Breast↗

Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening.

OBJECTIVE: To determine radiologists' reactions to uncertainty when interpreting mammography and the extent to which radiologist uncertainty explains variability in interpretive performance. METHODS: The authors used a mailed survey to assess demographic and clinical characteristics of radiologists and reactions to uncertainty associated with practice. Responses were linked to radiologists' actual interpretive performance data obtained from 3 regionally located mammography registries. RESULTS: More than 180 radiologists were eligible to participate, and 139 consented for a response rate of 76.8%. Radiologist gender, more years interpreting, and higher volume were associated with lower uncertainty scores. Positive predictive value, recall rates, and specificity were more affected by reactions to uncertainty than sensitivity or negative predictive value; however, none of these relationships was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Certain practice factors, such as gender and years of interpretive experience, affect uncertainty scores. Radiologists' reactions to uncertainty do not appear to affect interpretive performance.

Colorado↗

Mammographers' perception of women's breast cancer risk.

OBJECTIVE: To understand mammographers' perception of individual women's breast cancer risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists interpreting screening mammography examinations completed a mailed survey consisting of questions pertaining to demographic and clinical practice characteristics, as well as 2 vignettes describing different risk profiles of women. Respondents were asked to estimate the probability of a breast cancer diagnosis in the next 5 years for each vignette. Vignette responses were plotted against mean recall rates in actual clinical practice. RESULTS: The survey was returned by 77% of eligible radiologists. Ninety-three percent of radiologists overestimated risk in the vignette involving a 70-year-old woman; 96% overestimated risk in the vignette involving a 41-year-old woman. Radiologists who more accurately estimated breast cancer risk were younger, worked full-time, were affiliated with an academic medical center, had fellowship training, had fewer than 10 years experience interpreting mammograms, and worked more than 40% of the time in breast imaging. However, only age was statistically significant. No association was found between radiologists' risk estimate and their recall rate. CONCLUSION: U.S. radiologists have a heightened perception of breast cancer risk.

Adult↗