STRUCTURED VS NON STRUCTURED REPORTING IN PRIMARY RECTAL CANCER: A SURVEY OF THE PREFERENCES OF CLINICIANS AND RADIOLOGISTS

Palwasha Gul; Muhammad Omer Altaf; Pari Gul; Imran Niazi; Waqas Ahmad; Talha Yaseen kaimkhani

STRUCTURED VS NON STRUCTURED REPORTING IN PRIMARY RECTAL CANCER: A SURVEY OF THE PREFERENCES OF CLINICIANS AND RADIOLOGISTS

Palwasha Gul, Muhammad Omer Altaf, Pari Gul, Imran Niazi, Waqas Ahmad, Talha Yaseen kaimkhani

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the impact of structured reports (SRs) vs non-structured (NS) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports in patients with histologically proven rectal cancer. Effects of both types of reporting on completeness of report, clinical decision making, staging, linguistic quality, interdisciplinary communication etc were studied.

Materials and Methods: All patients underwent rectal MRI at 1.5T for local rectal cancer staging before surgery/neoadjuvant radio-chemotheraphy. Two patients with histopathologically proven carcinoma of rectum were selected randomly from Hospital information system (HIS) and images were studied from DICOM for structured reports. Non structured reports (NSR) of two selected patients were already generated under clinical routine practice by fellows and consultants. Structured reports of these patients were generated by two fellow radiologists. 18 clinicians and 9 radiologists evaluated a questionnaire regarding SRs vs NSRs that included 9 parameters like clarity, content, tumor stage etc. The clinicians and radiologists further scored these parameters from very satisfied to very dissatisfied on likert scale. The institutional review board approved this retrospective study.

Results: Structured reports achieved significantly higher satisfaction rates between radiologists, however clinicians were more in favour of NSR. Clinicians however were also satisfied and very satisfied regarding some of the parameters of SR but overall felt that SR are dissatisfying with regard to clarity, linguistic quality and were more time consuming.

Conclusions :

Despite of the fact that most of the recent studies showed higher accuracy of SR, it is still not in widespread use in most of the set ups including ours. It might be challenging and will still take more time to replace NSR completely.

Key words: structured, reports, MRI, Rectal carcinoma.

Full Text:

PDF

References

Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H. Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology. 2011 Jul;260(1):174-81.

Bell DS , Greenes RA . Evaluation of UltraSTAR: performance of a collaborative structured data entry system . Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1994 : 216 – 222 .

Langlotz CP . RadLex: a new method for indexing online educational materials . RadioGraphics 2006 ; 26 ( 6 ): 1595 – 1597 .

Kopans DB . Standardized mammography reporting . Radiol Clin North Am 1992 ; 30 ( 1 ):257 – 264 .

Kopans DB, D’Orsi CJ, Adler DD, Bassett LW, Brenner RJ, Dodd GD. Breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of radiology. 1993.

Beets-Tan RG, Lambregts DM, Maas M, Bipat S, Barbaro B, Caseiro-Alves F, Curvo-Semedo L, Fenlon HM, Gollub MJ, Gourtsoyianni S, Halligan S. Magnetic resonance imaging for the clinical management of rectal cancer patients: recommendations from the 2012 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting. European radiology. 2013 Sep 1;23(9):2522-31.

Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, Kent TS, Sanchez N, Pedrosa I. Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology. 2014 Oct 3;274(2):464-72.

Larson DB, Towbin AJ, Pryor RM, Donnelly LF. Improving consistency in radiology reporting through the use of department-wide standardized structured reporting. Radiology. 2013 Apr;267(1):240-50.

Powell DK, Silberzweig JE. State of structured reporting in radiology, a survey. Acad Radiol. 2015;22:226–233

Naik SS, Hanbidge A, Wilson SR. Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 176:591–598.

Bosmans JM, Weyler JJ, De Schepper AM, Parizel PM. The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. Radiology. 2011 Apr;259(1):184-95.

Plumb AA, Grieve FM, Khan SH. Survey of hospital clinicians' preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol. 2009;64:386–394; 395–396.

. Grieve FM, Plumb AA, Khan SH. Radiology reporting: a general practitioner's

perspective. Br J Radiol. 2010;83:17–22.

Vaid S, Park JS, Sinnott RJ. Outcomes of recurrent rectal cancer after transanal excision. Am Surg. 2016;82:152–155

Nörenberg D, Sommer WH, Thasler W, D'Haese J, Rentsch M, Kolben T, Schreyer A, Rist C, Reiser M, Armbruster M. Structured reporting of rectal magnetic resonance imaging in suspected primary rectal cancer: potential benefits for surgical planning and interdisciplinary communication. Investigative radiology. 2017 Apr 1;52(4):232-9.

Al-Sukhni E, Messenger DE, Victor JC, McLeod RS, Kennedy ED. Do MRI reports contain adequate preoperative staging information for end users to make appropriate treatment decisions for rectal cancer?. Annals of surgical oncology. 2013 Apr 1;20(4):1148-55.

Brown G, Richards CJ, Bourne MW, Newcombe RG, Radcliffe AG, Dallimore NS, Williams GT. Morphologic predictors of lymph node status in rectal cancer with use of high-spatial-resolution MR imaging with histopathologic comparison. Radiology. 2003 May;227(2):371-7.

Sahni VA, Silveira PC, Sainani NI, Khorasani R. Impact of a structured report template on the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging. American journal of roentgenology. 2015 Sep;205(3):584-8.

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.