Abstract
Purpose
To assess the completeness and clarity of current free-form radiology reports for pancreatic cancer staging by evaluating them against the elements of the RSNA CT oncology primary pancreas mass dictation template.
Methods
This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB). 295 free-form computed tomography (CT) reports for baseline staging of pancreatic cancer (PC) generated between August 2008 and December 2010 were evaluated by one of two radiologists with expertise in pancreatic cancer imaging. Reports which indicated that metastatic disease was present were excluded. The completeness and clarity of the reports were analyzed against the elements of the RSNA CT pancreas mass dictation template. Fisher’s exact tests were used to analyze differences by year and type of radiologist.
Results
Primary lesion location, size, and effect on bile duct (BD) were provided in 93.9% (277/295), 69.8% (206/295), and 67.5% (199/295) of reports, respectively. Standard terms to describe vascular involvement were used in 47.5% (140/295) of reports. In 20.3% (60/295), the resectability status could not be defined based on the report alone. In 36.9% (109/295) of reports, review of CT images was necessary to understand vascular involvement. Radiologists expert in pancreatic oncology had a higher proportion of reports using standardized terminology and reports in which vascular involvement was understood without revisiting the images.
Conclusions
Free-form reports were more likely to use ambiguous terminology and/or require review of the actual images for understanding resectability status. The use of a standardized reporting template may improve the usefulness of pancreatic cancer staging reports.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Reiner B, Siegel E (2006) Radiology reporting: returning to our image-centric roots. Am J Roentgenol 187(5):1151–1155. doi:10.2214/AJR.05.1954
Reiner BI (2009) The challenges, opportunities, and imperative of structured reporting in medical imaging. J Dig Imaging 22(6):562–568. doi:10.1007/s10278-009-9239-z
Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H (2011) Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 260(1):174–181. doi:10.1148/radiol.11101913
Steele JL, Nyce JM, Williamson KB, Gunderman RB (2002) Learning to report. Acad Radiol 9(7):817–820
Radiology Society of North America (RSNA) (2013) Radiology Reporting Initiative. http://www.rsna.org/Reporting_Initiative.aspx. Accessed 18 Oct 2013
National Cancer institute Quantitative Imaging for Evaluation of Responses to Cancer Therapies. http://imaging.cancer.gov/programsandresources/specializedinitiatives/gin. Accessed 30 Dec 2013
Radiological Society of North America Radreport. http://www.radreport.org. Accessed 18 June 2012
Al-Hawary MM, Francis IR, Chari ST, et al. (2014) Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma radiology reporting template: consensus statement of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and the American Pancreatic Association. Radiology 270(1):248–260. doi:10.1148/radiol.13131184
Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, et al. (2015) Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology 274(2):464–472. doi:10.1148/radiol.14140206
Varadhachary GR, Tamm EP, Abbruzzese JL, et al. (2006) Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: definitions, management, and role of preoperative therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 13(8):1035–1046. doi:10.1245/ASO.2006.08.011
Katz MH, Marsh R, Herman JM, et al. (2013) Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: need for standardization and methods for optimal clinical trial design. Ann Surg Oncol 20(8):2787–2795. doi:10.1245/s10434-013-2886-9
Evans DB, Farnell MB, Lillemoe KD, et al. (2009) Surgical treatment of resectable and borderline resectable pancreas cancer: expert consensus statement. Ann Surg Oncol 16(7):1736–1744. doi:10.1245/s10434-009-0416-6
Katz MH, Pisters PW, Evans DB, Sun CC, Lee JE, Fleming JB, Vauthey JN, Abdalla EK, Crane CH, Wolff RA, Varadhachary GR, Hwang RF (2008) Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: the importance of this emerging stage of disease. J Am Coll Surge 206(5):833–846; discussion 838–846. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.12.020
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2014) NCCN practice guidelines for pancreatic cancer, version 1. http://www.nccn.org/progessionals/physician_gls/pdf/pancreatic.pdf. Accessed 28 Jan 2014
Katz MH, Fleming JB, Bhosale P, et al. (2012) Response of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer to neoadjuvant therapy is not reflected by radiographic indicators. Cancer 118(23):5749–5756. doi:10.1002/cncr.27636
Sundaram B, Patel S, Bogot N, Kazerooni EA (2009) Anatomy and terminology for the interpretation and reporting of cardiac MDCT: part 1, Structured report, coronary calcium screening, and coronary artery anatomy. Am J Roentgenol 192(3):574–583. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1177
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the NIH/NCI under award number P30CA016672 Exhibit SSA07-09– RSNA 2011.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marcal, L.P., Fox, P.S., Evans, D.B. et al. Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging. Abdom Imaging 40, 2391–2397 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1