Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Structured reporting adds clinical value in primary CT staging of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

  • Oncology
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate whether template-based structured reports (SRs) add clinical value to primary CT staging in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) compared to free-text reports (FTRs).

Methods

In this two-centre study SRs and FTRs were acquired for 16 CT examinations. Thirty-two reports were independently scored by four haematologists using a questionnaire addressing completeness of information, structure, guidance for patient management and overall quality. The questionnaire included yes-no, 10-point Likert scale and 5-point scale questions. Altogether 128 completed questionnaires were evaluated. Non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test and McNemar’s test were used for statistical analysis.

Results

SRs contained information on affected organs more often than FTRs (95 % vs. 66 %). More SRs commented on extranodal involvement (91 % vs. 62 %). Sufficient information for Ann-Arbor classification was included in more SRs (89 % vs. 64 %). Information extraction was quicker from SRs (median rating on 10-point Likert scale=9 vs. 6; 7–10 vs. 4–8 interquartile range). SRs had better comprehensibility (9 vs. 7; 8–10 vs. 5–8). Contribution of SRs to clinical decision-making was higher (9 vs. 6; 6–10 vs. 3–8). SRs were of higher quality (p < 0.001). All haematologists preferred SRs over FTRs.

Conclusions

Structured reporting of CT examinations for primary staging in patients with DLBCL adds clinical value compared to FTRs by increasing completeness of reports, facilitating information extraction and improving patient management.

Key Points

• Structured reporting in CT helps clinicians to assess patients with lymphoma.

• This two-centre study showed that structured reporting improves information content and extraction.

• Patient management may be improved by structured reporting.

• Clinicians preferred structured reports over free-text reports.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

DLBCL:

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

FTR:

Free-text report

NHL:

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

RIS:

Radiology information system

SR:

Structured report

References

  1. Reiner BI, Knight N, Siegel EL (2007) Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist's perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 4:313–319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H (2011) Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 260:174–181

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Herzog R, Elgort DR, Flanders AE, Moley PJ (2017) Variability in diagnostic error rates of 10 MRI centers performing lumbar spine MRI examinations on the same patient within a 3-week period. Spine J 17:554–561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Morgan TA, Helibrun ME, Kahn CE Jr (2014) Reporting initiative of the Radiological Society of North America: progress and new directions. Radiology 273:642–645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dunnick NR, Langlotz CP (2008) The radiology report of the future: a summary of the 2007 Intersociety Conference. J Am Coll Radiol 5:626–629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Alkasab TK, Bizzo BC, Berland LL, Nair S, Pandharipande PV, Harvey HB (2017) Creation of an Open Framework for Point-of-Care Computer-Assisted Reporting and Decision Support Tools for Radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol 14:1184–1189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2011) Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines from the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Insights Imaging 2:93–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Norenberg D, Sommer WH, Thasler W et al (2017) Structured Reporting of Rectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Suspected Primary Rectal Cancer: Potential Benefits for Surgical Planning and Interdisciplinary Communication. Invest Radiol 52:232–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Marcovici PA, Taylor GA (2014) Journal Club: Structured radiology reports are more complete and more effective than unstructured reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:1265–1271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, Kent TS, Sanchez N, Pedrosa I (2015) Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology 274:464–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gassenmaier S, Armbruster M, Haasters F et al (2017) Structured reporting of MRI of the shoulder - improvement of report quality? Eur Radiol 27:4110–4119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schoeppe F, Sommer WH, Haack M et al (2018) Structured reports of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies have the potential to improve overall report quality compared to free text reports. Eur Radiol 28:308–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sahni VA, Silveira PC, Sainani NI, Khorasani R (2015) Impact of a Structured Report Template on the Quality of MRI Reports for Rectal Cancer Staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:584–588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bosmans JML, Peremans L, De Schepper AM, Duyck PO, Parizel PM (2011) How do referring clinicians want radiologists to report? Suggestions from the COVER survey. Insights Imaging 2:577–584

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ross P, Sepper R, Pohjonen H (2010) Cross-border teleradiology-experience from two international teleradiology projects. Eur J Radiol 73:20–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson AJ, Chen MY, Swan JS, Applegate KE, Littenberg B (2009) Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. Radiology 253:74–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weiss DL, Langlotz CP (2008) Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology 249:739–747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bosmans JML, Peremans L, Menni M, De Schepper AM, Duyck PO, Parizel PM (2012) Structured reporting: if, why, when, how—and at what expense? Results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries. Insights Imaging 3:295–302

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Shah HJ, Keraliya AR, Jagannathan JP, Tirumani SH, Lele VR, DiPiro PJ (2017) Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in the Era of Precision Oncology: How Imaging Is Helpful. Korean J Radiol 18:54–70

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. American Cancer Society (2017) Types of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. The American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. . Available via https://www.cancer.org/cancer/non-hodgkin-lymphoma/about/types-of-non-hodgkin-lymphoma.html. Accessed 13 Oct 2017

  21. Singh H, Sethi S, Raber M, Petersen LA (2007) Errors in cancer diagnosis: current understanding and future directions. J Clin Oncol 25:5009–5018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Plumb AA, Grieve FM, Khan SH (2009) Survey of hospital clinicians' preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol 64(386-394):395–386

    Google Scholar 

  23. Grieve FM, Plumb AA, Khan SH (2010) Radiology reporting: a general practitioner's perspective. Br J Radiol 83:17–22

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Alessandrino F, Pichiecchio A, Mallucci G et al (2018) Do MRI Structured Reports for Multiple Sclerosis Contain Adequate Information for Clinical Decision Making? AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:24–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson AJ, Chen MY, Zapadka ME, Lyders EM, Littenberg B (2010) Radiology report clarity: a cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. J Am Coll Radiol 7:501–506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gunderman RB, McNeive LR (2014) Is structured reporting the answer? Radiology 273:7–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jameson JL, Longo DL (2015) Precision medicine--personalized, problematic, and promising. N Engl J Med 372:2229–2234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Giardino A, Gupta S, Olson E et al (2017) Role of Imaging in the Era of Precision Medicine. Acad Radiol 24:639–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2015) Medical imaging in personalised medicine: a white paper of the research committee of the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Insights Imaging 6:141–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Herold CJ, Lewin JS, Wibmer AG et al (2016) Imaging in the Age of Precision Medicine: Summary of the Proceedings of the 10th Biannual Symposium of the International Society for Strategic Studies in Radiology. Radiology 279:226–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rubin DL, Kahn CE Jr (2017) Common Data Elements in Radiology. Radiology 283:837–844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rosenkrantz AB, Mendiratta-Lala M, Bartholmai BJ et al (2015) Clinical utility of quantitative imaging. Acad Radiol 22:33–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Abramson RG, Burton KR, Yu JPJ et al (2015) Methods and Challenges in Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Development. Acad Radiol 22:25–32

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kohli M, Prevedello LM, Filice RW, Geis JR (2017) Implementing Machine Learning in Radiology Practice and Research. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:754–760

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mazurowski MA (2015) Radiogenomics: what it is and why it is important. J Am Coll Radiol 12:862–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wildman-Tobriner B, Allen BC, Davis JT et al (2017) Structured Reporting of Magnetic Resonance Enterography for Pediatric Crohn's Disease: Effect on Key Feature Reporting and Subjective Assessment of Disease by Referring Physicians. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 46:110–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dickerson E, Davenport MS, Syed F et al (2017) Effect of Template Reporting of Brain MRIs for Multiple Sclerosis on Report Thoroughness and Neurologist-Rated Quality: Results of a Prospective Quality Improvement Project. J Am Coll Radiol 14:371–379.e371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franziska Schoeppe.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Wieland H. Sommer.

Conflict of interest

The following two authors of this manuscript declare relationships with Smart Reporting GmbH (online software for structured reporting templates):

Franziska Schoeppe: created and reviewed structured templates, background research; Wieland Sommer: co-founder.

All other authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to the study.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• multicentre study

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 49 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schoeppe, F., Sommer, W.H., Nörenberg, D. et al. Structured reporting adds clinical value in primary CT staging of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur Radiol 28, 3702–3709 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5340-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5340-3

Keywords

Navigation