Structured reports of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging in primary endometrial cancer: Potential benefits for clinical decision-making

Three-Dimensional Volume Rendering of Pelvic Floor Anatomy with Focus on Fibroids in Relation to the Lower Urogenital Tract Based on Cross-Sectional MRI Images

We aimed to assess the feasibility of developing three-dimensional (3D) models of pelvic organs using cross-sectional MRI images of patients with uterine fibroids and urinary symptoms and of obtaining anatomical information unavailable in 2D imaging modalities. We also aimed to compare two image processing applications. We performed a feasibility study analysing MRI scans from three women, aged 30 to 58 years old, with fibroids and urinary symptoms. Cross-sectional images were used to render 3D models of pelvic anatomy, including bladder, uterus and fibroids, using 3D Slicer and OsiriX. Dimensions, volumes and anatomical relationships of the pelvic organs were evaluated. Comparisons between anatomical landmarks and measurements obtained from the two image processing applications were undertaken. Rendered 3D pelvic models yielded detailed anatomical information and data on spatial relationships that were unobtainable from cross-sectional images. Models were rendered in sufficient resolution to aid understanding of spatial relationships between urinary bladder, uterus and fibroid(s). Measurements of fibroid volumes ranged from 5,336 to 418,012 mm3 and distances between the fibroid and urinary bladder ranged from 0.10 to 83.60 mm. Statistical analysis of measurements showed no significant differences in measurements between the two image processing applications. To date, limited data exist on the use of 3D volume reconstructions of routine MRI scans, to investigate pelvic pathologies such as fibroids in women with urinary symptoms. This study suggests that post-MRI image processing can provide additional information over standard MRI. Further studies are required to assess the role of these data in clinical practice, surgical planning and training. Three-dimensional reconstruction of routine two-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging provides additional anatomical information and may improve our understanding of anatomical relationships, their role in clinical presentations and possibly guide clinical and surgical management.

Radiologist Productivity Analytics: Factors Impacting Abdominal Pelvic CT Exam Reporting Times

The purpose is to determine factors impacting radiologist abdominal pelvic CT exam reporting time. This study was Research Ethics Board approved. Between January 2019 and March 2020, consecutive abdominal pelvic CT exams were documented as structured or unstructured based on application of templates with separate sections for different organs or organ systems. Radiologist reporting location, patient class (inpatient, Emergency Department (ED) patient, outpatient), radiologist fellowship-training, report word count, and radiologist years of experience were documented. Median reporting times were compared using the Wilcoxon Rank-sum test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and regression analysis. Spearman's rank correlation was used to determine correlation between word count and radiologist experience with reporting time. P < 0.05 is defined statistical significance. A total of 3602 abdominal pelvic CT exam reports completed by 33 radiologists were reviewed, including 1150 outpatient and 2452 inpatient and Emergency Department (ED) cases. 1398 of all reports were structured. Median reporting time for structured and unstructured reports did not differ (P = 0.870). Reports dictated in-house were completed faster than reports dictated remotely (P < 0.001), and reports for inpatients/ED patients were completed faster than for outpatients (P < 0.001). Reporting time differences existed between radiologists (P < 0.001) that were not explained by fellowship training (P = 0.762). Median reporting time had a weak correlation with word count (ρ = 0.355) and almost no correlation with radiologist years of experience (ρ = 0.167), P < 0.001. Abdominal pelvic CT reporting is most efficient when dictations are completed in-house and for high-priority cases; the use of structured templates, radiologist fellowship training, and years of experience have no impact on reporting times.

Structured reporting in radiology: a systematic review to explore its potential

OBJECTIVES

Structured reporting (SR) in radiology reporting is suggested to be a promising tool in clinical practice. In order to implement such an emerging innovation, it is necessary to verify that radiology reporting can benefit from SR. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to explore the level of evidence of structured reporting in radiology. Additionally, this review provides an overview on the current status of SR in radiology.

METHODS

A narrative systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using the syntax 'radiol*' AND 'structur*' AND 'report*'. Structured reporting was divided in SR level 1, structured layout (use of templates and checklists), and SR level 2, structured content (a drop-down menu, point-and-click or clickable decision trees). Two reviewers screened the search results and included all quantitative experimental studies that discussed SR in radiology. A thematic analysis was performed to appraise the evidence level.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 63 relevant full text articles out of a total of 8561 articles. Thematic analysis resulted in 44 SR level 1 and 19 level 2 reports. Only one paper was scored as highest level of evidence, which concerned a double cohort study with randomized trial design.

CONCLUSION

The level of evidence for implementing SR in radiology is still low and outcomes should be interpreted with caution.

KEY POINTS

• Structured reporting is increasingly being used in radiology, especially in abdominal and neuroradiological CT and MRI reports. • SR can be subdivided into structured layout (SR level 1) and structured content (SR level 2), in which the first is defined as being a template in which the reporter has to report; the latter is an IT-based manner in which the content of the radiology report can be inserted and displayed into the report. • Despite the extensive amount of research on the subject of structured reporting, the level of evidence is low.

Chest CT in COVID-19 patients: Structured vs conventional reporting

Purpose

To assess clinician satisfaction with structured (SR) and conventional (CR) radiological reports for chest CT exams in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, objectively comparing both reporting strategies.

Method

We retrospectively included 68 CTs (61 patients) with COVID-19. CRs were collected from the digital database while corresponding SRs were written by an expert radiologist, including a sign checklist, severity score index and final impressions. New CRs were prepared for a random subset (n = 10) of cases, to allow comparisons in reporting time and word count. CRs were analyzed to record severity score and final impressions inclusion. A random subset of 40 paired CRs and SRs was evaluated by two clinicians to assess, using a Likert scale, readability, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, conciseness, clinical impact, and overall quality.

Results

Overall, 19/68 (28 %) and 9/68 (13 %) of CRs included final impressions and severity score, respectively. SR writing required significantly (p < 0.001) less time (mean = 308 s; SD ± 60 s) compared to CRs (mean = 458 s; SD ± 72 s). On the other hand, word count was not significantly different (p = 0.059, median = 100 and 106, range = 106–139 and 88–131 for SRs and CRs, respectively). Both clinicians expressed significantly (all p < 0.01) higher scores for SRs compared to CRs in all categories.

Conclusions

Our study supports the use of chest CT SRs in COVID-19 patients to improve referring physician satisfaction, optimizing reporting time and provide a greater amount and quality of information within the report.

State of the art in abdominal MRI structured reporting: a review

In the management of several abdominal disorders, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to significantly improve patient's outcome due to its diagnostic accuracy leading to more appropriate treatment choice. However, its clinical value heavily relies on the quality and quantity of diagnostic information that radiologists manage to convey through their reports. To solve issues such as ambiguity and lack of comprehensiveness that can occur with conventional narrative reports, the adoption of structured reporting has been proposed. Using a checklist and standardized lexicon, structured reports are designed to increase clarity while assuring that all key imaging findings related to a specific disorder are included. Unfortunately, structured reports have their limitations too, such as risk of undue report simplification and poor template plasticity. Their adoption is also far from widespread, and probably the ideal balance between radiologist autonomy and report consistency of has yet to be found. In this article, we aimed to provide an overview of structured reporting proposals for abdominal MRI and of works assessing its value in comparison to conventional free-text reporting. While for several abdominal disorders there are structured templates that have been endorsed by scientific societies and their adoption might be beneficial, stronger evidence confirming their imperativeness and added value in terms of clinical practice is needed, especially regarding the improvement of patient outcome.

An investigation on gastric cancer staging using CT structured report

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical performance of structured report (SR) for CT in patients with pre-operative staging of gastric cancer, compared to non-SR.

METHODS

Retrospectively, 51 consecutive cases with primary gastric cancer staging were enrolled. Every SR or non-SR was performed by two GI radiologists (1 junior and 1 senior). Interobserver agreement was conducted between the junior and senior groups for both SR and non-SR. 10 key features required for lesion description and staging were assessed between SR and non-SR. Diagnostic content between SR and non-SR was also compared. Accuracy of SR and non-SR on T staging was measured. Subjective evaluation of SR vs. non-SR was also conducted in form of survey by 20 radiologists and 3 GI surgeons.

RESULTS

Interobserver agreement showed excellent in SR (Kappa = 1, P < 0.001), but poor in non-SR (Kappa = 0.036, P = 0.455). For the 10 key features required for lesion assessment, non-SR showed 6.84 ± 0.83 while SR reported all of them (P < 0.001). Statistically significant improvement was observed in the SR for parts of key features, especially for assessment of adjacent organs and vessels (P < 0.001). Accuracy comparison of T staging showed higher in SR for cohort of T4a (P = 0.028<0.05). The scores of subjective evaluation were higher (P < 0.05) in SR than in non-SR by both radiologists and surgeons. Meanwhile, the inter-observer agreement among surgeons was good in SR with significance (w=0.53, P = 0.005 for efficiency; w=0.638, P < 0.001 for integrity) but poor in non-SR.

CONCLUSIONS

SR of gastric multiphasic CT ensured reliable detection of all relevant key features for staging along with reproducible documentation, which was not always the case for non-SR. In addition, SR has the potential in improving diagnostical accuracy of T staging and was welcomed by clinicians.

Structured report for chest high-resolution computed tomography in patients with connective tissue disease: Impact on the report quality as perceived by referring clinicians

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact on perceived report quality of referring rheumatologists for a chest high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) structured report (SR) template for patients with connective tissue disease (CTD), compared to the traditional narrative report (NR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively considered 123 HRCTs in patients with CTD. Three radiologists, blinded to the original NRs they wrote during clinical routine, re-reported each HRCT using an SR dedicated template. We then divided all NR-SR couples into three groups (41 HRCT each). Each group was evaluated by one of three rheumatologists (R1, R2, R3), who expressed their perceived report quality for the respective pools of NRs and SRs in terms of completeness, clarity (both on a 10-points scale), and clinical relevance (on a 5-points scale). The Wilcoxon test and the McNemar test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

For each rheumatologist, SR received higher ratings compared to NR for completeness (median ratings: R1, 10 vs. 7; R2, 10 vs. 8; R3, 10 vs. 6, all p < 0.0001), clarity (median ratings: R1, 10 vs. 7; R2, 10 vs. 8; R3, 10 vs. 7, all p < 0.0001), and clinical relevance (median ratings: R1, 5 vs. 4; R2, 5 vs. 4; R3, 5 vs. 1, all p < 0.0001). After rating dichotomization, the use of SR led to a significant increase (p < 0.01) in completeness, clarity, and clinical relevance as compared to NR, except for clarity as perceived by R2 (p = 1).

CONCLUSION

Referring rheumatologists' perceived report quality for structured reporting of HRCT in patients with CTD was superior to narrative reporting.