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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |