Value of Clinical Information on Radiology Reports in Oncological Imaging
Felix Schön,
Rebecca Sinzig,
Felix Walther,
Christoph Georg Radosa,
Heiner Nebelung,
Maria Eberlein-Gonska,
Ralf-Thorsten Hoffmann,
Jens-Peter Kühn,
Sophia Freya Ulrike Blum
Affiliations
Felix Schön
Institute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany
Rebecca Sinzig
Institute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany
Felix Walther
Quality and Medical Risk Management, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany
Christoph Georg Radosa
Institute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany
Heiner Nebelung
Institute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany
Maria Eberlein-Gonska
Quality and Medical Risk Management, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany
Ralf-Thorsten Hoffmann
Institute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany
Jens-Peter Kühn
Institute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany
Sophia Freya Ulrike Blum
Institute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany
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.
