I'm curious. Do you think it's clinically relevant to be able to identify non-cancerous tumors in a bone? By name? Isn't that what the radiologist is supposed to do? Certainly it's important to be able to identify if a bone tumor is invasive, etc, but clinically speaking, a benign bone tumor of any kind in the calcaneus will be treated the same way, no? Especially if symptomatic, right?
This is precisely the problem I have with this. After 20 years in practice, how does it show my "clinical competency" that it is a unicameral bone cyst vs. an adipose tumor? Especially with the horrible resolution of the pics included in the "test"? Show me a nice multilobulated tumor if you want me to see it. Not some blurry image, that could or could not be more than one lobule with a very distinct looking focal area, that is precisely what a unicameral bone cyst looks like. You know how many of those I've seen in 20 years. TWO.
Does anyone else have a problem with this being done every quarter? I mean, I have a good 15-20 years left of practice. I have to do four of these a year for the next 15 years???? Seriously???