Abstract Context Prognosis of metastatic pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma following 131-Iodine metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) is incompletely characterized due to small samples and shorter follow-up in these rare, often indolent tumors. Objective To describe long-term survival, frequency, and prognostic impact of imaging, biochemical, and symptomatic response to 131-I MIBG. Design Retrospective chart and imaging review at a tertiary referral center. Patients Six hundred sixty-eight person-years of follow-up in 125 patients with metastatic pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma with progression through prior multimodal treatment. Intervention Median 18 800 MBq 131-I MIBG. Main Outcome Measures Overall survival, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST) imaging response, symptomatic response per chart review, and biochemical response (20% change over 2 consecutive assays of catecholamines, vanillylmandelic acid, metanephrines, or chromogranin A). Results Median survival standard deviation [SD] from diagnosis was 11.5 years [2.4]; following metastasis, 6.5 years [0.8]; post treatment, 4.3 years [0.7]. Among 88 participants with follow-up imaging, 1% experienced complete response, 33% partial response, 53% stability, and 13% progression. Fifty-one percent showed subsequent progression, median progression-free survival [SD] of 2.0 years [0.6]. Stability/response vs progression at first imaging follow-up (3–6 months) predicted improved survival, 6.3 vs 2.4 years (P = 0.021). Fifty-nine percent of 54 patients demonstrated biochemical response. Fifty percent of these relapsed, with median time to laboratory progression [SD] of 2.8 years [0.7]. Biochemical response did not predict extended survival. Seventy-five percent of 83 patients reported improvement in pretreatment symptoms, consisting primarily of pain (42%), fatigue (27%), and hypertension (14%). Sixty-one percent of these patients experienced subsequent symptomatic progression at median [SD] 1.8 years [0.4]. Symptomatic response did not predict extended survival. Conclusions Imaging, symptomatic, and laboratory response to multimodal treatment including high-dose 131-I MIBG were achieved on long-term follow-up in metastatic pheochromocytoma or paraganglioma. Imaging response at 3 to 6 months was prognostic.
Bias in Radiology Resident Selection: Do We Discriminate Against the Obese and Unattractive?
Purpose To evaluate for appearance-based discrimination in the selection of radiology residents. Method A deception study simulating the resident selection process examined the impact of attractiveness and obesity on resident selection. Seventy-four core faculty from 5 academic radiology departments reviewed mock residency applications in September and October 2017. Each application included demographic information and a photograph, representing a prespecified distribution of facial attractiveness and obesity, combined with randomized academic and supporting variables. Reviewers independently scored applications for interview desirability. Reviewer scores and application variables were compared using linear mixed fixed- and random-effects models. Results Reviewers evaluated 5,447 applications (mean: 74 applications per reviewer). United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores were the strongest predictor of reviewer rating (B = 0.35 [standard error (SE) = 0.029]). Applicant facial attractiveness strongly predicted rating (attractive vs unattractive, B = 0.30 [SE = 0.056]; neutral vs unattractive, B = 0.13 [SE = 0.028]). Less influential but still significant predictors included race/ethnicity (B = 0.25 [SE = 0.059]), preclinical class rank (B = 0.25 [SE = 0.040]), clinical clerkship grades (B = 0.23 [SE = 0.034]), Alpha Omega Alpha membership (B = 0.21 [SE = 0.032]), and obesity (vs not obese) (B = −0.14 [SE = 0.024]). Conclusions Findings provide preliminary evidence of discrimination against facially unattractive and obese applicants in radiology resident selection. Obesity and attractiveness were as influential in applicant selection for interview as traditional medical school performance metrics. Selection committees should invoke strategies to detect and manage appearance-based bias.