Clinical importance of second-opinion interpretations by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center: magnetic resonance imaging for endometrial cancer staging

Abstract

ObjectiveTo determine whether there are substantive differences between the initial interpretations of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans acquired at outside facilities and the second-opinion interpretations of radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center, among patients referred for endometrial cancer staging.Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective, comparative analysis of 153 initial and second-opinion MRI reports for endometrial cancer staging officially submitted for review by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology. For each case, the relationship between the initial and second-opinion reports, regarding the suggested diagnosis and the clinically relevant MRI findings reported, was categorized as "agreement" or "disagreement". Histopathology was used in order to establish the definitive diagnosis.ResultsDisagreement was found in 58 (37.9%) of the 153 cases. Second-opinion interpretations reported findings that affected the preoperative cancer staging and could have led to a change in treatment in 38 cases (24.8%); that did not affect the preoperative staging but provided information that was more accurate in 8 (5.2%); and that suggested a new cancer diagnosis in 12 (7.8%). In 37 cases (24.2%), there was a potential for changes in patient care. Among the 58 cases of disagreement, a definitive (histopathological) diagnosis was made in 41 (70.7%). In 31 (75.6%) of those 41 cases, the second-opinion report was more accurate than was the initial report.ConclusionDiscordant interpretations of MRI examinations, which can have a substantial effect on the clinical management of patients, appear to be common.

Recommendations in Second Opinion Radiology Reports of Abdominal Imaging Examinations: Referring Clinicians' Compliance and Diagnostic Outcome

“…For example, a study of 398 secondary interpretations of abdominal imaging examinations reported that 20 primary reports (5.0%) had high clinical impact interpretative discrepancies, whereas none of the secondary reports contained any high clinical impact discrepancies when compared with the final diagnosis made on the basis of clinical notes, pathologic examination, and subsequent imaging studies [2]. Several other studies have reported similar findings [3][4][5][6][7][8][9].…”

Subpubic cartilaginous cyst: a rare cause of vulvar lesion

“…Imaging exams, MRI in particular, have garnered increasing attention in the assessment of pelvic diseases (6)(7)(8)(9)(10) . A diagnosis of SCC, which is based on clinical and imaging findings, depends on the amount of mucinous and cartilaginous material, which results in a heterogeneous aspect on MRI (2,11) .…”

Transvaginal ultrasound in deep endometriosis: pictorial essay

“…Difficulties in the diagnosis of endometriosis are still observed in clinical practice. Therefore, it is necessary to develop techniques that are more accessible, are less invasive, and have good reproducibility ( 2 ) . Magnetic resonance imaging has long been the method of choice for the assessment of pelvic disorders ( 3 - 6 ) .…”