Iron overload is a systemic disorder and is either primary (genetic) or secondary (exogenous iron administration). Primary iron overload is most commonly associated with hereditary hemochromatosis and secondary iron overload with ineffective erythropoiesis (predominantly caused by β-thalassemia major and sickle cell disease) that requires long-term transfusion therapy, leading to transfusional hemosiderosis. Iron overload may lead to liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, in addition to cardiac and endocrine complications. The liver is one of the main iron storage organs and the first to show iron overload. Therefore, detection and quantification of liver iron overload are critical to initiate treatment and prevent complications. Liver biopsy was the historical reference standard for detection and quantification of liver iron content. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is now commonly used for liver iron quantification, including assessment of distribution, detection, grading, and monitoring of treatment response in iron overload. Several MR imaging techniques have been developed for iron quantification, each with advantages and limitations. The liver-to-muscle signal intensity ratio technique is simple and widely available; however, it assumes that the reference tissue is normal. Transverse magnetization (also known as R2) relaxometry is validated but is prone to respiratory motion artifacts due to a long acquisition time, is presently available only for 1.5-T imaging, and requires additional cost and delay for off-line analysis. The R2* technique has fast acquisition time, demonstrates a wide range of liver iron content, and is available for 1.5-T and 3.0-T imaging but requires additional postprocessing software. Quantitative susceptibility mapping has the highest sensitivity for detecting iron deposition; however, it is still investigational, and the correlation with liver iron content is not yet established. RSNA, 2018.

Objective: Radiology residents must fulfill a standardized curriculum to complete residency and pass a certification exam before they are granted a licence to practice. We sought to evaluate how well residency prepares trainees for practice as perceived by recent graduates and their department chiefs. Subjects and Methods: Radiologists who graduated from the 4 Quebec radiology residency programs between 2005 and 2016 (n = 237) and Quebec radiology department chiefs (n = 98) were anonymously surveyed. Two electronic surveys were created, for recent graduates (74 questions) and for department chiefs (11 questions), with multiple-choice questions and open questions covering all fields of radiology. Surveys were administered between April and June 2016 using the Association des radiologistes du Québec database. Results: Response rate was 75 (31.6%) of 237 from recent graduates and 96% rated their training as excellent or good. Satisfaction with training in computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging was high, with musculoskeletal (MSK) imaging, particularly MSK ultrasound (US), as well as pediatric, cardiac, and vascular imaging needing more training. Thirty-nine (39.8%) of 98 department chiefs answered the survey and highlighted weaknesses in the interpretation of conventional radiography, obstetrical US, and invasive procedures, as well as limited leadership and administrative skills. Recent graduates and department chiefs both reported difficulties in the ability to interpret daily volume of examinations as scheduled and invasive procedure competency. Conclusion: This survey highlights areas of the radiology curriculum which may benefit from more emphasis during training. Adjustments in the residency program would ensure graduates are successful both in their certification exams and clinical practice.