Matthew Petterson

All Publications

• MRI-based Neuropathy Score Reporting And Data System (NS-RADS): multi-institutional wider-experience usability study of peripheral neuropathy conditions among 32 radiology readers. European radiology Chhabra, A., Duarte Silva, F., Mogharrabi, B., Guirguis, M., Ashikyan, O., Rasper, M., Park, E., Walter, S. S., Umpierrez, M., Pezeshk, P., Thurlow, P. C., Jagadale, A., Bajaj, G., Komarraju, A., Wu, J. S., Aguilera, A., Cardoso, F. N., Souza, F., Chaganti, S., Antil, N., Manzano, W., Stebner, A., Evers, J., Petterson, M., Geisbush, T., Downing, C., Christensen, D., Horneber, E., Kim, J. M., Purushothaman, R., Mohanan, S., Raichandani, S., Vilanilam, G., Cabrera, C., Manov, J., Maloney, S., Deshmukh, S. D., Lutz, A. M., Fritz, J., Andreisek, G., Chalian, M., Wong, P. K., Pandey, T., Subhawong, T., Xi, Y. 2024

  Abstract

  To determine the inter-reader reliability and diagnostic performance of classification and severity scales of Neuropathy Score Reporting And Data System (NS-RADS) among readers of differing experience levels after limited teaching of the scoring system.This is a multi-institutional, cross-sectional, retrospective study of MRI cases of proven peripheral neuropathy (PN) conditions. Thirty-two radiology readers with varying experience levels were recruited from different institutions. Each reader attended and received a structured presentation that described the NS-RADS classification system containing examples and reviewed published articles on this subject. The readers were then asked to perform NS-RADS scoring with recording of category, subcategory, and most likely diagnosis. Inter-reader agreements were evaluated by Conger's kappa and diagnostic accuracy was calculated for each reader as percent correct diagnosis. A linear mixed model was used to estimate and compare accuracy between trainees and attendings.Across all readers, agreement was good for NS-RADS category and moderate for subcategory. Inter-reader agreement of trainees was comparable to attendings (0.65 vs 0.65). Reader accuracy for attendings was 75% (95% CI 73%, 77%), slightly higher than for trainees (71% (69%, 72%), p = 0.0006) for nerves and comparable for muscles (attendings, 87.5% (95% CI 86.1-88.8%) and trainees, 86.6% (95% CI 85.2-87.9%), p = 0.4). NS-RADS accuracy was also higher than average accuracy for the most plausible diagnosis for attending radiologists at 67% (95% CI 63%, 71%) and for trainees at 65% (95% CI 60%, 69%) (p = 0.036).Non-expert radiologists interpreted PN conditions with good accuracy and moderate-to-good inter-reader reliability using the NS-RADS scoring system.The Neuropathy Score Reporting And Data System (NS-RADS) is an accurate and reliable MRI-based image scoring system for practical use for the diagnosis and grading of severity of peripheral neuromuscular disorders by both experienced and general radiologists.• The Neuropathy Score Reporting And Data System (NS-RADS) can be used effectively by non-expert radiologists to categorize peripheral neuropathy. • Across 32 different experience-level readers, the agreement was good for NS-RADS category and moderate for NS-RADS subcategory. • NS-RADS accuracy was higher than the average accuracy for the most plausible diagnosis for both attending radiologists and trainees (at 75%, 71% and 65%, 65%, respectively).

  View details for DOI 10.1007/s00330-023-10517-2

  View details for PubMedID 38244046

  View details for PubMedCentralID 4266395

• Charges for Shoppable Musculoskeletal Imaging Examinations: CMS Transparency Compliance and Variability Among 250 U.S. Hospitals. AJR. American journal of roentgenology Petterson, M. B., Willis, M. H., Rosenberg, J. K., Boutin, R. D. 1800

  Abstract

  As of January 2021, among other transparency requirements, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requires that hospitals publish consumer-friendly displays of charges for shoppable healthcare services, including four musculoskeletal imaging examinations. Of 250 selected U.S. hospitals, all published charges for these four examinations, although 21% did not provide charges within consumer-friendly displays. Bed count was larger for compliant than noncompliant hospitals (500 vs. 384). All four examinations exhibited widely variable charges (up to 73.8-fold).

  View details for DOI 10.2214/AJR.21.27008

  View details for PubMedID 35043665

• Measuring interdisciplinarity of biomedical research, medical specialty performance, and implications for radiology: A retrospective review of 2.6 million citations. Clinical imaging Petterson, M. B., Longhurst, C., Yu, J. J. 2021; 80: 322-328

  Abstract

  PURPOSE: To assess and determine the overall interdisciplinarity and impact of radiology and imaging sciences research.METHODS: Utilizing the Thomson Reuters Web of Science, the top 15 journals rank-ordered by impact factor in each of 10 major medical subspecialties were identified. The 2012 impact factors for these journals were noted. All articles published in these journals between 2012 and 2014 were then used to produce an index list of publications. We next generated a list of all published articles in the ensuing 5-year period that cited any publication present on our index list. These data were then used to calculate an interdisciplinarity score (DIV*) for 146 unique scientific journals. The correlation between the impact factor and the DIV* score was calculated with Kendall's tau.RESULTS: The quantitative measure of research interdisciplinarity, DIV*, is significantly correlated with journal impact factor (tau=0.201, p<0.001). Research journals within radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging ranked 5th among 10 clinical subspecialties by mean impact factor but ranked second-to-last in mean DIV*.CONCLUSION: The interdisciplinarity score DIV* is positively correlated with journal impact factor, demonstrating the greater impact and reach of interdisciplinary research. Further, we found radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging research to have one of the lowest measures of DIV* among the 10 major clinical subspecialties. Our findings suggest and point to new opportunities and directions that can expand the breadth and impact of radiology research as well as new ways to increase our reach and audience in the clinical scientific literature.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.08.012

  View details for PubMedID 34488167

• Use of breast imaging-reporting and data system (BI-RADS) ultrasound classification in pediatric and adolescent patients overestimates likelihood of malignancy JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY Davis, J., Liang, J., Roh, A., Kittrell, L., Petterson, M., Winton, L., Connell, M., Viscusi, R., Komenaka, I., Jamshidi, R. 2021; 56 (5): 1000-1003

  Abstract

  Breast masses in the pediatric population cause patient and family concern, partially driven by public awareness of adult breast cancer. However, the spectrum of breast masses in children differs greatly from that in adults, and malignancy is exceedingly rare. The American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) ultrasound-based classification system is the diagnostic standard, yet no study has validated BI-RADS in pediatric patients. This study compares BI-RADS classification with histologic diagnoses to evaluate BI-RADS validity in pediatric patients.Multicenter retrospective evaluation of breast masses in patients under 21 years. Ultrasound reports were compared with histologic diagnoses.There were 283 patients with breast pathology results after excluding clinical diagnoses of gynecomastia. Mean age was 16.9 (SD 2.3), ranging 10-20 years. 227 had pre-operative ultrasounds, and 84% (191/227) were assigned a BI-RADS category. BI-RADS 4 was the most frequent category (55%, n = 124), by definition predicting 2 - 95% likelihood of malignancy. However, pathology was benign in all patients.The current BI-RADS categorization system overestimates cancer risk when applied to pediatric patients. BI-RADS scores should not be assigned to pediatric patients, and BIRADS-defined recommendations for biopsy should be disregarded. A pediatric-specific classification system could be useful.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2020.12.025

  View details for Web of Science ID 000649635700030

  View details for PubMedID 33494944

• Risk Factors for Late Screening Mammography CURRENT PROBLEMS IN DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY Davis, J., Liang, J., Petterson, M. B., Roh, A. T., Chundu, N., Kang, P., Matz, S. L., Connell, M. J., Gridley, D. G. 2019; 48 (1): 40-44

  Abstract

  Breast cancer has the highest incidence of cancers in women in the United States. Previous research has shown that screening mammography contributes to reduced breast cancer mortality. This study aimed to clarify why late screening might occur in an at-risk population.This study was a prospective cross-sectional study including 758 patients presenting to our radiology department for routine screening mammography who completed a 30-question survey regarding personal characteristics and mammography history. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were performed to determine whether survey responses correlated with late screening.Of the 758 patients, 184 (24%) were noncompliant with screening mammography guidelines. Risk factors for late screening included younger age (P = 0.001), white race/ethnicity (P = 0.03), self-reported lack of financial means or health insurance (P = 0.005), lack of satisfaction with a previous mammogram experience (P = 0.001), inadequate mammography education by a physician (P = 0.001), and lack of awareness/comprehension of screening mammography guidelines (P = 0.002).Many factors contribute to late screening mammography. Although some are outside physician control, others can be influenced: patient education regarding screening mammography guidelines, and patient satisfaction with the mammography experience. This study highlights the importance of communication with and education of patients.

  View details for DOI 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2017.10.014

  View details for Web of Science ID 000449230000009

  View details for PubMedID 29273558

• Micrometastatic gastric glomus tumour confirmed by next-generation sequencing HISTOPATHOLOGY Davis, J., Petterson, M., Newell, J., Lauwers, G. Y., Royce, T., Demeure, M. J. 2018; 72 (2): 351-354

  View details for DOI 10.1111/his.13303

  View details for Web of Science ID 000418125100017

  View details for PubMedID 28675515

• Computed tomography localization of the appendix in the pediatric population relative to the lumbar spine PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY Davis, J., Roh, A. T., Petterson, M. B., Kopelman, T. R., Matz, S. L., Gridley, D. G., Connell, M. J. 2017; 47 (3): 301-305

  Abstract

  Computed tomography (CT) is commonly used to evaluate suspected acute appendicitis. Although very effective, CT uses ionizing radiation, exposing patients to an increased risk of cancer.This study assessed the potential for decreasing the field of view of the CT (and therefore the dose to the patient) in the evaluation of suspected acute appendicitis in children.This study was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from 212 consecutive patients who underwent CT for suspected acute appendicitis. The most superior aspect of the appendix with respect to vertebral bodies was recorded. Age, gender and diagnosis (negative, acute appendicitis or alternative diagnosis) were noted.The appendix was visualized in 190 of 212 subjects (89.6%). Overall, all visualized appendixes were located at or below the level of L1. Sixty-three of the subjects (29.7%) were diagnosed with acute appendicitis via CT imaging. All appendixes in patients with acute appendicitis were located at or below the level of the L3 vertebral body, predominating at the level of L5. Six subjects (3.1%) received alternative diagnoses, including pneumonia, pyelonephritis, small bowel obstruction and infected urachal cyst. There were no differences in appendix location with regard to diagnosis, gender, or age (P=0.664, 0.748 and 0.705, respectively).CT field of view may be decreased to the level of L1 or L3 superiorly, decreasing radiation dose without affecting the rate of appendix visualization.

  View details for DOI 10.1007/s00247-016-3773-x

  View details for Web of Science ID 000394998200007

  View details for PubMedID 28091700