Oncologic PET/CT interpretation and reporting approaches. Survey in clinical practice

Towards More Structure: Comparing TNM Staging Completeness and Processing Time of Text-Based Reports versus Fully Segmented and Annotated PET/CT Data of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Results of PET/CT examinations are communicated as text-based reports which are frequently not fully structured. Incomplete or missing staging information can be a significant source of staging and treatment errors. We compared standard text-based reports to a manual full 3D-segmentation-based approach with respect to TNM completeness and processing time. TNM information was extracted retrospectively from 395 reports. Moreover, the RIS time stamps of these reports were analyzed. 2995 lesions using a set of 41 classification labels (TNM features + location) were manually segmented on the corresponding image data. Information content and processing time of reports and segmentations were compared using descriptive statistics and modelling. The TNM/UICC stage was mentioned explicitly in only 6% (n=22) of the text-based reports. In 22% (n=86), information was incomplete, most frequently affecting T stage (19%, n=74), followed by N stage (6%, n=22) and M stage (2%, n=9). Full NSCLC-lesion segmentation required a median time of 13.3 min, while the median of the shortest estimator of the text-based reporting time (R1) was 18.1 min (p=0.01). Tumor stage (UICC I/II: 5.2 min, UICC III/IV: 20.3 min, p < 0.001), lesion size (p < 0.001), and lesion count (n=1: 4.4 min, n=12: 37.2 min, p < 0.001) correlated significantly with the segmentation time, but not with the estimators of text-based reporting time. Numerous text-based reports are lacking staging information. A segmentation-based reporting approach tailored to the staging task improves report quality with manageable processing time and helps to avoid erroneous therapy decisions based on incomplete reports. Furthermore, segmented data may be used for multimedia enhancement and automatization.