Quantitative radiology reporting in oncology: Survey of oncologists and radiologists

Les R. Folio, Chelsye J. Nelson, Menashe Benjamin, Ayelet Ran, Guy Engelhard, David A. Bluemke

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. Tumor quantification is essential for determining the clinical efficacy and response to established and evolving therapeutic agents in cancer trials. The purpose of this study was to seek the opinions of oncologists and radiologists about quantitative interactive and multimedia reporting. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Questionnaires were distributed to 253 oncologists and registrars and to 35 radiologists at our institution through an online survey application. Questions were asked about current reporting methods, methods for Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) tumor measurement, and preferred reporting format. RESULTS. The overall response rates were 43.1% (109/253) for oncologists and 80.0% (28/35) for radiologists. The oncologists treated more than 40 tumor types. Most of the oncologists (65.7% [67/102]) and many radiologists (44.4% [12/27]) (p = 0.020) deemed the current traditional qualitative radiology reports insufficient for reporting tumor burden and communicating measurements. Most of the radiologists (77.8% [21/27]) and oncologists (85.5% [71/83]) (p = 0.95) agreed that key images with measurement annotations helped in finding previously measured tumors; however, only 43% of radiologists regularly saved key images. Both oncologists (64.2% [70/109]) and radiologists (67.9% [19/28]) (p = 0.83) preferred the ability to hyperlink measurements from reports to images of lesions as opposed to textonly reports. Approximately 60% of oncologists indicated that they handwrote tumor measurements on RECIST forms, and 40% used various digital formats. Most of the oncologists (93%) indicated that managing tumor measurements within a PACS would be superior to handwritten data entry and retyping of data into a cancer database. CONCLUSION. Oncologists and radiologists agree that quantitative interactive reporting would be superior to traditional text-only qualitative reporting for assessing tumor burden in cancer trials. A PACS reporting system that enhances and promotes collaboration between radiologists and oncologists improves quantitative reporting of tumors.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)W233-W243
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume205
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Radiology
Neoplasms
Tumor Burden
Surveys and Questionnaires
Radiologists
Oncologists
Multimedia
Databases

Keywords

  • Productivity
  • Quality improvement
  • Radiology reports
  • Tumor metrics
  • Work flow

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Folio, L. R., Nelson, C. J., Benjamin, M., Ran, A., Engelhard, G., & Bluemke, D. A. (2015). Quantitative radiology reporting in oncology: Survey of oncologists and radiologists. American Journal of Roentgenology, 205(3), W233-W243. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.14054

Quantitative radiology reporting in oncology : Survey of oncologists and radiologists. / Folio, Les R.; Nelson, Chelsye J.; Benjamin, Menashe; Ran, Ayelet; Engelhard, Guy; Bluemke, David A.

In: American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 205, No. 3, 01.09.2015, p. W233-W243.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Folio, LR, Nelson, CJ, Benjamin, M, Ran, A, Engelhard, G & Bluemke, DA 2015, 'Quantitative radiology reporting in oncology: Survey of oncologists and radiologists', American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 205, no. 3, pp. W233-W243. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.14054
Folio, Les R. ; Nelson, Chelsye J. ; Benjamin, Menashe ; Ran, Ayelet ; Engelhard, Guy ; Bluemke, David A. / Quantitative radiology reporting in oncology : Survey of oncologists and radiologists. In: American Journal of Roentgenology. 2015 ; Vol. 205, No. 3. pp. W233-W243.
@article{7e1f2f5b1ef94607a76c65bc74db7e22,
title = "Quantitative radiology reporting in oncology: Survey of oncologists and radiologists",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE. Tumor quantification is essential for determining the clinical efficacy and response to established and evolving therapeutic agents in cancer trials. The purpose of this study was to seek the opinions of oncologists and radiologists about quantitative interactive and multimedia reporting. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Questionnaires were distributed to 253 oncologists and registrars and to 35 radiologists at our institution through an online survey application. Questions were asked about current reporting methods, methods for Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) tumor measurement, and preferred reporting format. RESULTS. The overall response rates were 43.1{\%} (109/253) for oncologists and 80.0{\%} (28/35) for radiologists. The oncologists treated more than 40 tumor types. Most of the oncologists (65.7{\%} [67/102]) and many radiologists (44.4{\%} [12/27]) (p = 0.020) deemed the current traditional qualitative radiology reports insufficient for reporting tumor burden and communicating measurements. Most of the radiologists (77.8{\%} [21/27]) and oncologists (85.5{\%} [71/83]) (p = 0.95) agreed that key images with measurement annotations helped in finding previously measured tumors; however, only 43{\%} of radiologists regularly saved key images. Both oncologists (64.2{\%} [70/109]) and radiologists (67.9{\%} [19/28]) (p = 0.83) preferred the ability to hyperlink measurements from reports to images of lesions as opposed to textonly reports. Approximately 60{\%} of oncologists indicated that they handwrote tumor measurements on RECIST forms, and 40{\%} used various digital formats. Most of the oncologists (93{\%}) indicated that managing tumor measurements within a PACS would be superior to handwritten data entry and retyping of data into a cancer database. CONCLUSION. Oncologists and radiologists agree that quantitative interactive reporting would be superior to traditional text-only qualitative reporting for assessing tumor burden in cancer trials. A PACS reporting system that enhances and promotes collaboration between radiologists and oncologists improves quantitative reporting of tumors.",
keywords = "Productivity, Quality improvement, Radiology reports, Tumor metrics, Work flow",
author = "Folio, {Les R.} and Nelson, {Chelsye J.} and Menashe Benjamin and Ayelet Ran and Guy Engelhard and Bluemke, {David A.}",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2214/AJR.14.14054",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "205",
pages = "W233--W243",
journal = "American Journal of Roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantitative radiology reporting in oncology

T2 - Survey of oncologists and radiologists

AU - Folio, Les R.

AU - Nelson, Chelsye J.

AU - Benjamin, Menashe

AU - Ran, Ayelet

AU - Engelhard, Guy

AU - Bluemke, David A.

PY - 2015/9/1

Y1 - 2015/9/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE. Tumor quantification is essential for determining the clinical efficacy and response to established and evolving therapeutic agents in cancer trials. The purpose of this study was to seek the opinions of oncologists and radiologists about quantitative interactive and multimedia reporting. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Questionnaires were distributed to 253 oncologists and registrars and to 35 radiologists at our institution through an online survey application. Questions were asked about current reporting methods, methods for Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) tumor measurement, and preferred reporting format. RESULTS. The overall response rates were 43.1% (109/253) for oncologists and 80.0% (28/35) for radiologists. The oncologists treated more than 40 tumor types. Most of the oncologists (65.7% [67/102]) and many radiologists (44.4% [12/27]) (p = 0.020) deemed the current traditional qualitative radiology reports insufficient for reporting tumor burden and communicating measurements. Most of the radiologists (77.8% [21/27]) and oncologists (85.5% [71/83]) (p = 0.95) agreed that key images with measurement annotations helped in finding previously measured tumors; however, only 43% of radiologists regularly saved key images. Both oncologists (64.2% [70/109]) and radiologists (67.9% [19/28]) (p = 0.83) preferred the ability to hyperlink measurements from reports to images of lesions as opposed to textonly reports. Approximately 60% of oncologists indicated that they handwrote tumor measurements on RECIST forms, and 40% used various digital formats. Most of the oncologists (93%) indicated that managing tumor measurements within a PACS would be superior to handwritten data entry and retyping of data into a cancer database. CONCLUSION. Oncologists and radiologists agree that quantitative interactive reporting would be superior to traditional text-only qualitative reporting for assessing tumor burden in cancer trials. A PACS reporting system that enhances and promotes collaboration between radiologists and oncologists improves quantitative reporting of tumors.

AB - OBJECTIVE. Tumor quantification is essential for determining the clinical efficacy and response to established and evolving therapeutic agents in cancer trials. The purpose of this study was to seek the opinions of oncologists and radiologists about quantitative interactive and multimedia reporting. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Questionnaires were distributed to 253 oncologists and registrars and to 35 radiologists at our institution through an online survey application. Questions were asked about current reporting methods, methods for Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) tumor measurement, and preferred reporting format. RESULTS. The overall response rates were 43.1% (109/253) for oncologists and 80.0% (28/35) for radiologists. The oncologists treated more than 40 tumor types. Most of the oncologists (65.7% [67/102]) and many radiologists (44.4% [12/27]) (p = 0.020) deemed the current traditional qualitative radiology reports insufficient for reporting tumor burden and communicating measurements. Most of the radiologists (77.8% [21/27]) and oncologists (85.5% [71/83]) (p = 0.95) agreed that key images with measurement annotations helped in finding previously measured tumors; however, only 43% of radiologists regularly saved key images. Both oncologists (64.2% [70/109]) and radiologists (67.9% [19/28]) (p = 0.83) preferred the ability to hyperlink measurements from reports to images of lesions as opposed to textonly reports. Approximately 60% of oncologists indicated that they handwrote tumor measurements on RECIST forms, and 40% used various digital formats. Most of the oncologists (93%) indicated that managing tumor measurements within a PACS would be superior to handwritten data entry and retyping of data into a cancer database. CONCLUSION. Oncologists and radiologists agree that quantitative interactive reporting would be superior to traditional text-only qualitative reporting for assessing tumor burden in cancer trials. A PACS reporting system that enhances and promotes collaboration between radiologists and oncologists improves quantitative reporting of tumors.

KW - Productivity

KW - Quality improvement

KW - Radiology reports

KW - Tumor metrics

KW - Work flow

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84942589406&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84942589406&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2214/AJR.14.14054

DO - 10.2214/AJR.14.14054

M3 - Article

C2 - 26295661

AN - SCOPUS:84942589406

VL - 205

SP - W233-W243

JO - American Journal of Roentgenology

JF - American Journal of Roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 3

ER -