Cargando…

Comparison of 3D printed prostate models with standard radiological information to aid understanding of the precise location of prostate cancer: A construct validation study

BACKGROUND: To investigate the reliability with which healthcare professionals with different levels of expertise are able to impart the exact location of prostate cancer (PCA) after (A) reading written magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports, (B) attending MRI presentations in multidisciplinary te...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ebbing, Jan, Jäderling, Fredrik, Collins, Justin W., Akre, Olof, Carlsson, Stefan, Höijer, Jonas, Olsson, Mats J., Wiklund, Peter N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6016928/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29940018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199477
_version_ 1783334634075979776
author Ebbing, Jan
Jäderling, Fredrik
Collins, Justin W.
Akre, Olof
Carlsson, Stefan
Höijer, Jonas
Olsson, Mats J.
Wiklund, Peter N.
author_facet Ebbing, Jan
Jäderling, Fredrik
Collins, Justin W.
Akre, Olof
Carlsson, Stefan
Höijer, Jonas
Olsson, Mats J.
Wiklund, Peter N.
author_sort Ebbing, Jan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To investigate the reliability with which healthcare professionals with different levels of expertise are able to impart the exact location of prostate cancer (PCA) after (A) reading written magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports, (B) attending MRI presentations in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDT), and (C) examining 3D printed prostate models, which represents a new technology to describe the location of PCA lesions. METHODS: We used three different PCA cases to assess the three information tools. Construct validation was performed using two healthcare groups with different levels of expertise: (1) Nine expert urologists in PCA, and (2) nine medical students. After each information tool, the study participants plotted the tumor location in a 2-dimensional prostate diagram. A scoring system was established to evaluate the drawings in terms of accuracy of plotting tumor position. Data are shown as median scores with interquartile range. RESULTS: Within the expert group, no significant difference was seen in the overall scoring results between the information tools (p = 0.34). Medical students performed significantly worse with MDT information (p = 0.03). Experts performed better in all three information tools compared to students, resulting in a significantly 25% higher overall total score (25.0[22.3–26.7] vs. 20.0[15.0–24.0], p<0.001). The difference was largest after MDT information, with experts showing a 49% better scoring (p<0.001), and second largest with the 3D printed models, showing a 17% better scoring of the experts (p = 0.07). No difference was found in the written MRI report scoring results between experts and students. CONCLUSIONS: 3D printed models provided better orientation guide to medical students compared to MDT MRI presentations. This indicates that the 3D printed models might be easier to understand than the current gold standard MDT conferences. Therefore, 3D models may play an increasingly important role in providing guidance for orientation for less experienced individuals, such as surgical trainees.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6016928
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60169282018-07-07 Comparison of 3D printed prostate models with standard radiological information to aid understanding of the precise location of prostate cancer: A construct validation study Ebbing, Jan Jäderling, Fredrik Collins, Justin W. Akre, Olof Carlsson, Stefan Höijer, Jonas Olsson, Mats J. Wiklund, Peter N. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: To investigate the reliability with which healthcare professionals with different levels of expertise are able to impart the exact location of prostate cancer (PCA) after (A) reading written magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports, (B) attending MRI presentations in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDT), and (C) examining 3D printed prostate models, which represents a new technology to describe the location of PCA lesions. METHODS: We used three different PCA cases to assess the three information tools. Construct validation was performed using two healthcare groups with different levels of expertise: (1) Nine expert urologists in PCA, and (2) nine medical students. After each information tool, the study participants plotted the tumor location in a 2-dimensional prostate diagram. A scoring system was established to evaluate the drawings in terms of accuracy of plotting tumor position. Data are shown as median scores with interquartile range. RESULTS: Within the expert group, no significant difference was seen in the overall scoring results between the information tools (p = 0.34). Medical students performed significantly worse with MDT information (p = 0.03). Experts performed better in all three information tools compared to students, resulting in a significantly 25% higher overall total score (25.0[22.3–26.7] vs. 20.0[15.0–24.0], p<0.001). The difference was largest after MDT information, with experts showing a 49% better scoring (p<0.001), and second largest with the 3D printed models, showing a 17% better scoring of the experts (p = 0.07). No difference was found in the written MRI report scoring results between experts and students. CONCLUSIONS: 3D printed models provided better orientation guide to medical students compared to MDT MRI presentations. This indicates that the 3D printed models might be easier to understand than the current gold standard MDT conferences. Therefore, 3D models may play an increasingly important role in providing guidance for orientation for less experienced individuals, such as surgical trainees. Public Library of Science 2018-06-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6016928/ /pubmed/29940018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199477 Text en © 2018 Ebbing et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ebbing, Jan
Jäderling, Fredrik
Collins, Justin W.
Akre, Olof
Carlsson, Stefan
Höijer, Jonas
Olsson, Mats J.
Wiklund, Peter N.
Comparison of 3D printed prostate models with standard radiological information to aid understanding of the precise location of prostate cancer: A construct validation study
title Comparison of 3D printed prostate models with standard radiological information to aid understanding of the precise location of prostate cancer: A construct validation study
title_full Comparison of 3D printed prostate models with standard radiological information to aid understanding of the precise location of prostate cancer: A construct validation study
title_fullStr Comparison of 3D printed prostate models with standard radiological information to aid understanding of the precise location of prostate cancer: A construct validation study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of 3D printed prostate models with standard radiological information to aid understanding of the precise location of prostate cancer: A construct validation study
title_short Comparison of 3D printed prostate models with standard radiological information to aid understanding of the precise location of prostate cancer: A construct validation study
title_sort comparison of 3d printed prostate models with standard radiological information to aid understanding of the precise location of prostate cancer: a construct validation study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6016928/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29940018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199477
work_keys_str_mv AT ebbingjan comparisonof3dprintedprostatemodelswithstandardradiologicalinformationtoaidunderstandingofthepreciselocationofprostatecanceraconstructvalidationstudy
AT jaderlingfredrik comparisonof3dprintedprostatemodelswithstandardradiologicalinformationtoaidunderstandingofthepreciselocationofprostatecanceraconstructvalidationstudy
AT collinsjustinw comparisonof3dprintedprostatemodelswithstandardradiologicalinformationtoaidunderstandingofthepreciselocationofprostatecanceraconstructvalidationstudy
AT akreolof comparisonof3dprintedprostatemodelswithstandardradiologicalinformationtoaidunderstandingofthepreciselocationofprostatecanceraconstructvalidationstudy
AT carlssonstefan comparisonof3dprintedprostatemodelswithstandardradiologicalinformationtoaidunderstandingofthepreciselocationofprostatecanceraconstructvalidationstudy
AT hoijerjonas comparisonof3dprintedprostatemodelswithstandardradiologicalinformationtoaidunderstandingofthepreciselocationofprostatecanceraconstructvalidationstudy
AT olssonmatsj comparisonof3dprintedprostatemodelswithstandardradiologicalinformationtoaidunderstandingofthepreciselocationofprostatecanceraconstructvalidationstudy
AT wiklundpetern comparisonof3dprintedprostatemodelswithstandardradiologicalinformationtoaidunderstandingofthepreciselocationofprostatecanceraconstructvalidationstudy