Cargando…

Value of Clinical Information on Radiology Reports in Oncological Imaging

Radiological reporting errors have a direct negative impact on patient treatment. The purpose of this study was to investigate the contribution of clinical information (CI) in radiological reporting of oncological imaging and the dependence on the radiologists’ experience level (EL). Sixty-four pati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schön, Felix, Sinzig, Rebecca, Walther, Felix, Radosa, Christoph Georg, Nebelung, Heiner, Eberlein-Gonska, Maria, Hoffmann, Ralf-Thorsten, Kühn, Jens-Peter, Blum, Sophia Freya Ulrike
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9321157/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35885499
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12071594
_version_ 1784755969931083776
author Schön, Felix
Sinzig, Rebecca
Walther, Felix
Radosa, Christoph Georg
Nebelung, Heiner
Eberlein-Gonska, Maria
Hoffmann, Ralf-Thorsten
Kühn, Jens-Peter
Blum, Sophia Freya Ulrike
author_facet Schön, Felix
Sinzig, Rebecca
Walther, Felix
Radosa, Christoph Georg
Nebelung, Heiner
Eberlein-Gonska, Maria
Hoffmann, Ralf-Thorsten
Kühn, Jens-Peter
Blum, Sophia Freya Ulrike
author_sort Schön, Felix
collection PubMed
description Radiological reporting errors have a direct negative impact on patient treatment. The purpose of this study was to investigate the contribution of clinical information (CI) in radiological reporting of oncological imaging and the dependence on the radiologists’ experience level (EL). Sixty-four patients with several types of carcinomas and twenty patients without tumors were enrolled. Computed tomography datasets acquired in primary or follow-up staging were independently analyzed by three radiologists (R) with different EL (R1: 15 years; R2: 10 years, R3: 1 year). Reading was initially performed without and 3 months later with CI. Overall, diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity for primary tumor detection increased significantly when receiving CI from 77% to 87%; p = 0.01 and 73% to 83%; p = 0.01, respectively. All radiologists benefitted from CI; R1: 85% vs. 92%, p = 0.15; R2: 77% vs. 83%, p = 0.33; R3: 70% vs. 86%, p = 0.02. Overall, diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity for detecting lymphogenous metastases increased from 80% to 85% (p = 0.13) and 42% to 56% (p = 0.13), for detection of hematogenous metastases from 85% to 86% (p = 0.61) and 46% to 60% (p = 0.15). Specificity remained stable (>90%). Thus, CI in oncological imaging seems to be essential for correct radiological reporting, especially for residents, and should be available for the radiologist whenever possible.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9321157
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93211572022-07-27 Value of Clinical Information on Radiology Reports in Oncological Imaging Schön, Felix Sinzig, Rebecca Walther, Felix Radosa, Christoph Georg Nebelung, Heiner Eberlein-Gonska, Maria Hoffmann, Ralf-Thorsten Kühn, Jens-Peter Blum, Sophia Freya Ulrike Diagnostics (Basel) Article Radiological reporting errors have a direct negative impact on patient treatment. The purpose of this study was to investigate the contribution of clinical information (CI) in radiological reporting of oncological imaging and the dependence on the radiologists’ experience level (EL). Sixty-four patients with several types of carcinomas and twenty patients without tumors were enrolled. Computed tomography datasets acquired in primary or follow-up staging were independently analyzed by three radiologists (R) with different EL (R1: 15 years; R2: 10 years, R3: 1 year). Reading was initially performed without and 3 months later with CI. Overall, diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity for primary tumor detection increased significantly when receiving CI from 77% to 87%; p = 0.01 and 73% to 83%; p = 0.01, respectively. All radiologists benefitted from CI; R1: 85% vs. 92%, p = 0.15; R2: 77% vs. 83%, p = 0.33; R3: 70% vs. 86%, p = 0.02. Overall, diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity for detecting lymphogenous metastases increased from 80% to 85% (p = 0.13) and 42% to 56% (p = 0.13), for detection of hematogenous metastases from 85% to 86% (p = 0.61) and 46% to 60% (p = 0.15). Specificity remained stable (>90%). Thus, CI in oncological imaging seems to be essential for correct radiological reporting, especially for residents, and should be available for the radiologist whenever possible. MDPI 2022-06-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9321157/ /pubmed/35885499 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12071594 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Schön, Felix
Sinzig, Rebecca
Walther, Felix
Radosa, Christoph Georg
Nebelung, Heiner
Eberlein-Gonska, Maria
Hoffmann, Ralf-Thorsten
Kühn, Jens-Peter
Blum, Sophia Freya Ulrike
Value of Clinical Information on Radiology Reports in Oncological Imaging
title Value of Clinical Information on Radiology Reports in Oncological Imaging
title_full Value of Clinical Information on Radiology Reports in Oncological Imaging
title_fullStr Value of Clinical Information on Radiology Reports in Oncological Imaging
title_full_unstemmed Value of Clinical Information on Radiology Reports in Oncological Imaging
title_short Value of Clinical Information on Radiology Reports in Oncological Imaging
title_sort value of clinical information on radiology reports in oncological imaging
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9321157/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35885499
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12071594
work_keys_str_mv AT schonfelix valueofclinicalinformationonradiologyreportsinoncologicalimaging
AT sinzigrebecca valueofclinicalinformationonradiologyreportsinoncologicalimaging
AT waltherfelix valueofclinicalinformationonradiologyreportsinoncologicalimaging
AT radosachristophgeorg valueofclinicalinformationonradiologyreportsinoncologicalimaging
AT nebelungheiner valueofclinicalinformationonradiologyreportsinoncologicalimaging
AT eberleingonskamaria valueofclinicalinformationonradiologyreportsinoncologicalimaging
AT hoffmannralfthorsten valueofclinicalinformationonradiologyreportsinoncologicalimaging
AT kuhnjenspeter valueofclinicalinformationonradiologyreportsinoncologicalimaging
AT blumsophiafreyaulrike valueofclinicalinformationonradiologyreportsinoncologicalimaging