Radiology reporting of incidental osteoporotic vertebral fragility fractures present on CT studies: results of UK national re-audit

AIM

To describe a UK-wide re-audit of the 2019 Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) audit evaluating patient-related data and organisational infrastructure in the radiological reporting of vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) on computed tomography (CT) studies and to assess the impact of a series of RCR interventions, initiated to raise VFF awareness, on reporting practice and outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient specific and organisational questionnaires largely replicated those utilised in 2019. The patient questionnaire involved retrospective analysis of between 50 and 100 consecutive, non-traumatic CT studies which included the thoracolumbar spine. All RCR radiology audit leads were invited to participate. Data collection commenced from 1 April 2022.

RESULTS

Data were supplied by 129/194 (67%) departments. One thousand five hundred and eighty-six of 7,316 patients (21.7%) had a VFF on auditor review. Overall improvements were demonstrated in key initial/provisional reporting results; comment on spine/bone (93.2%, 14.4% improvement, p<0.0002); fracture severity assessment (34.7%, 8.5% improvement, p=0.0007); use of recommended terminology (67.8%, 7.5% improvement, p=0.0034); recommendations for further management (11.7%, 9.1% improvement, p<0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

The 2022 national re-audit confirms improvements in diagnostic performance and practice in VFF reporting. Continuing work is required to build on this improvement and to further embed best practice.

National audit of seven-day working care in radiology

Objectives

To evaluate the extent to which our current provision of diagnostic and interventional radiology services matches existing clinical demand and future government proposals as set out in the Royal College of Radiologists published guidance on providing seven-day acute care.

Methods

In June 2018, all UK radiology department audit leads were sent a questionnaire designed to assess compliance for each standard of the Royal College of Radiologists published guidance on providing seven-day acute care.

Results

135 hospitals (68%) responded. Of those that responded, 96% of departments have a diagnostic radiologist rota for clinicians to discuss acute cases and review imaging and 48% of departments do not have a fully staffed consultant rota 24 h a day, seven days a week for interventional radiology. There is significant variance in MRI radiographer availability within departments, ranging from 18.8% during Saturday/Sunday evening/overnight up to a maximum of 63.9% during Saturday daytime. 11% of departments participate in a regional out of hours cross-organisation reporting rota. 40% of departments have no 24/7 RIS technical support and 34% have no PACS technical support out of hours.

Conclusion

There is a wide variation in practice across radiology departments in the UK. Although there are some standards that the majority of hospitals are achieving, there is a significant short-fall in fundamental aspects of providing acute seven-day care. The multifactorial nature in which these problems have arisen means there is no easy solution to combat these issues. There is a requirement for significant investment and political commitment to improve staffing and infrastructure in order to address the current situation.

Advances in knowledge

A UK wide evaluation of the current provision of seven-day working in radiology showing 54% of hospitals do not have a UK working-time regulations compliant Interventional radiology rota, severe lack of availability of acute MRI out of hours and significant deficiencies in providing technical support out of hours. A sustainable and efficient seven-day service is currently not being provided.

Imaging in myeloma: a Royal College of Radiologists national survey of current imaging practice

AIMS

To evaluate current national imaging practice in myeloma with reference to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines (NG35, 2016) and compare results with an initial survey conducted in 2017 (61 participating sites).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All UK radiology departments treating myeloma patients and with a Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) Audit Lead were invited to participate. Data were collected using an online questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were performed.

RESULTS

One hundred and fourteen hospitals supplied data (54% return rate). Skeletal survey (SS) remains the most-commonly performed first-line imaging test for suspected/confirmed myeloma or plasmacytoma (39%, 45/114 hospitals), followed by whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) (27%, 31/114) and whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) (19%, 22/114). Integrated positron-emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) was first-line in 14% (16/114). The NICE recommended initial investigation, WBMRI, is currently offered in 27% of surveyed hospitals (<10% in 2017). Ongoing challenges to implementing WBMRI include scanner availability, financial constraints, reporting time, and radiologist training.

CONCLUSION

Despite NICE recommendations regarding WBMRI in diagnosis/follow-up of myeloma, SS (poor sensitivity and specificity) remains the most commonly performed first-line test. Radiologists, haematologists, and patients should continue to emphasise the superiority and benefit of modern and more accurate imaging, such that they are prioritised in clinical service planning.

Royal College of Radiologists national audit evaluating the provision of imaging in the severely injured patient and compliance with national guidelines

AIM

To evaluate the provision of imaging in severely injured patients and com pliance with national guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two data collection tools were sent to all Royal College of Radiologist audit leads in radiology departments with an emergency department throughout the UK. The first focused on configuration of radiology departments, number of patients scanned for major trauma and service configuration for major trauma. The second focused on reporting times for 30 patients scanned for major trauma.

RESULTS

Eighty-five out of 191 (45%) eligible departments responded: 16 (19%) from major trauma centres, 52 (61%) from trauma units and 17 (20%) from other hospitals with an emergency department. Data were collected for 2,161 scans: 450 from major trauma centres, 1,400 from trauma units and 311 from emergency departments. Seven hundred and eighty-four (36%) scans were performed in hours and 1361 (63%) out of hours. Two hundred and forty (11%) scans had a primary survey report documented, of which 53 (22%) were unavailable to clinicians after 20 minutes. Time to final consultant report was within 1 hour for 1,033 (48%) scans and within 2 hours for an additional 540 (25%) scans. 34/85 (40%) departments have registrars first on call for major trauma who report scans out of hours and have a consultant final report the next day.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights significant deficiencies in care and imaging of severely injured patients within major trauma centres and trauma units. Infrastructure and staffing have been underfunded and under resourced to meet rapidly changing best practice requirements in the management of major trauma.

A royal college of radiologists national audit of radiotherapy in the treatment of metastatic spinal cord compression and implications for the development of acute oncology services

AIMS

To audit the current use of radiotherapy in UK cancer centres for the treatment of metastatic spinal cord compression against national standards that seek to optimise functional and quality of life outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Royal College of Radiologists prospective national audit of patients treated with radiotherapy in UK cancer centres was carried out over a 3 month period between September and December 2008, with a repeat audit carried out in August 2012.

RESULTS

Five hundred and ninety-six cases were received from 42 cancer centres (74%) in 2008, with data from 323 cases received from 52 (90%) centres in 2012. Ninety-three per cent (358) of patients had a diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging scan carried out within 24 h of referral for radiotherapy in 2008 compared with 205 patients (97%) in 2012. One hundred and eleven (32%) good prognosis patients were discussed with spinal surgeons; only 10 good prognosis patients were recorded as proceeding to surgery in 2008. This improved in 2012, with 94 (41% of good prognosis patients recorded as having been discussed with nine proceeding to surgery). Sixty-nine per cent of paraplegic patients in 2008 received multiple fractions of radiotherapy, which was similar to 2012 when 62% received more than a single fraction. A metastatic spinal cord compression co-ordinator was available in just over 50% of cases (164/323) and was involved in patient management in 26% of cases in 2012.

CONCLUSION

Despite level 1 evidence of the superior functional outcome and survival benefit for surgery, few good prognosis patients were recorded as having been discussed with surgeons and even fewer proceeded to surgery.

Staging cancer of the uterus: a national audit of MRI accuracy

AIM

To report the results of a nationwide audit of the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) staging in uterine body cancer when staging myometrial invasion, cervical extension, and lymph node spread.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All UK radiology departments were invited to participate using a web-based tool for submitting anonymized data for a 12 month period. MRI staging was compared with histopathological staging using target accuracies of 85, 86, and 70% respectively.

RESULTS

Of the departments performing MRI staging of endometrial cancer, 37/87 departments contributed. Targets for MRI staging were achieved for two of the three standards nationally with diagnostic accuracy for depth of myometrial invasion, 82%; for cervical extension, 90%; and for pelvic nodal involvement, 94%; the latter two being well above the targets. However, only 13/37 (35%) of individual centres met the target for assessing depth of myometrial invasion, 31/36 (86%) for cervical extension and 31/34 (91%) for pelvic nodal involvement. Statistical analysis demonstrated no significant difference for the use of intravenous contrast medium, but did show some evidence of increasing accuracy in assessment of depth of myometrial invasion with increasing caseload.

CONCLUSION

Overall performance in the UK was good, with only the target for assessment of depth of myometrial invasion not being met. Inter-departmental variation was seen. One factor that may improve performance in assessment of myometrial invasion is a higher caseload. No other clear factor to improve performance were identified.

Substantial improvement in UK cervical cancer survival with chemoradiotherapy: results of a Royal College of Radiologists' audit

AIMS

To compare survival and late complications between patients treated with chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy for locally advanced cervix cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Royal College of Radiologists' audit of patients treated with radiotherapy in UK cancer centres in 2001-2002. Survival, recurrence and late complications were assessed for patients grouped according to radical treatment received (radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, postoperative radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) and non-radical treatment. Late complication rates were assessed using the Franco-Italian glossary.

RESULTS

Data were analysed for 1243 patients from 42 UK centres. Overall 5-year survival was 56% (any radical treatment); 44% (radical radiotherapy); 55% (chemoradiotherapy) and 71% (surgery with postoperative radiotherapy). Overall survival at 5 years was 59% (stage IB), 44% (stage IIB) and 24% (stage IIIB) for women treated with radiotherapy, and 65% (stage IB), 61% (stage IIB) and 44% (stage IIIB) for those receiving chemoradiotherapy. Cox regression showed that survival was significantly better for patients receiving chemoradiotherapy (hazard ratio=0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.60-0.98; P=0.037) compared with those receiving radiotherapy taking age, stage, pelvic node involvement and treatment delay into account. The grade 3/4 late complication rate was 8% (radiotherapy) and 10% (chemoradiotherapy). Although complications continued to develop up to 7 years after treatment for those receiving chemoradiotherapy, there was no apparent increase in overall late complications compared with radiotherapy alone when other factors were taken into account (hazard ratio=0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.71-1.245; P=0.667).

DISCUSSION

The addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy seems to have improved survival compared with radiotherapy alone for women treated in 2001-2002, without an apparent rise in late treatment complications.

Geographical variation in radiotherapy services across the UK in 2007 and the effect of deprivation

AIMS

Modelling of demand has shown substantial underprovision of radiotherapy in the UK. We used national audit data to study geographical differences in radiotherapy waiting times, access and dose fractionation across the four countries of the UK and between English strategic health authorities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a web-based tool to collect data on diagnosis, dose fractionation and waiting times on all National Health Service patients in the UK starting a course of radiotherapy in the week commencing 24 September 2007. Cancer incidence for the four countries of the UK and for England by primary care trust was used to model demand for radiotherapy aggregated by country and by strategic health authority.

RESULTS

Across the UK, excluding skin cancer, 2504 patients were prescribed 33 454 fractions in the audit week. Waits for radical radiotherapy exceeded the recommended 4 week maximum for 31% of patients (range 0-62%). Fractions per million per year ranged from 17 678 to 36 426 and radical fractions per incident cancer ranged from 3.0 to 6.7. Patients who were treated received similar treatment in terms of fractions per radical course of radiotherapy (18.2-23.0). Access rates ranged from 25.2 to 48.8%, nearing the modelled optimum of 50.7% in three regions. Fractions per million prescribed as a first course of treatment varied from 43.9 to 90.3% of modelled demand. The percentage of patients failing to meet the 4 week Joint Council for Clinical Oncology target for radical radiotherapy rose as activity rates increased (r=0.834), indicating a mismatch of demand and capacity. In England, a comparison between strategic health authorities showed that increasing deprivation was correlated with lower rates of access to radiotherapy (r=-0.820).

CONCLUSIONS

There are substantial differences across the UK in the radiotherapy provided to patients and its timeliness. Radiotherapy capacity does not reflect regional variations in cancer incidence across the UK (3618-5800 cases per million per year). In addition, deprivation is a major unrecognised influence on radiotherapy access rates. In regions with higher levels of deprivation, fewer patients with cancer receive radiotherapy and the proportion treated radically is lower. This probably reflects late presentation with advanced disease, poor performance status and co-morbid illness. To provide an equitable, evidence-based service, the needs of the local population should be assessed using demand modelling based on local cancer incidence. Ideally this should include data on deprivation, performance status and stage at presentation. The results should be compared with local radiotherapy activity data to understand waits, access and dose fractionation in order to plan adequate provision for the future. The development of a mandatory radiotherapy data set in England will facilitate this, but to assist change it is essential that the results are analysed and fed back to clinicians and commissioners.

Waiting times for systemic cancer therapy in the United Kingdom in 2006

This audit was conducted to measure waiting times for systemic cancer therapy across the United Kingdom. All patients, aged 16 years or older, commencing their first course of systemic therapy between 13 November and 19 November 2006 were eligible for inclusion. Data on 936 patients from 81 hospital sources were collected. Systemic therapy is largely given in compliance with national waiting time targets. In terms of the Joint Council for Clinical Oncology (JCCO) targets, 84% of patients commence treatment within 21 days and 98% of patients complied with the Department of Health target that treatment should follow within 31 days of the decision being agreed with the patient. Only 76% complied with the Department of Health 62-day target from GP referral to first definitive treatment. However, the date of urgent referral by the GP was not submitted for most patients in our survey, leaving a sample of only 84 out of 936 patients (9% of total) suitable for this analysis. There was only a 3- to 5-day difference between the waiting times for systemic therapy for patients categorised as urgent compared with routine. Locally agreed definitions had little impact on patients' priority for treatment. This audit has established a baseline measurement of waiting times for systemic therapy across the United Kingdom. The continuing introduction of novel therapies is likely to have a significant effect on the service and we recommend that service managers model the likely impact on resource requirements. In addition, urgent treatment should be clearly defined as that required within 24 h (maximum 48 h) to avoid the risk of clinical deterioration, particularly in patients with acute leukaemia, lymphoma or germ cell tumour.