A structured approach to reporting rectal cancer with magnetic resonance imaging

Tarulli, Emidio; Thipphavong, Seng; Jhaveri, Khartik

doi:10.1007/s00261-015-0518-5

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To the best of our knowledge there have been no previous prospective studies on SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations. Additionally, this has been one of the largest prospective studies on structured reporting in general [10–13, 33, 34]. Our data showed that the use of SRs leads to significantly improved report quality, completeness and readability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Reports of head and neck ultrasound examinations are frequently written by hand as free texts. Naturally, quality and structure of free text reports is variable, depending on the examiner’s individual level of experience. Aim of the present study was to compare the quality of free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR) of head and neck ultrasound examinations. Methods Both standard FTRs and SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations of 43 patients were acquired by nine independent examiners with comparable levels of experience. A template for structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations was created using a web-based approach. FTRs and SRs were evaluated with regard to overall quality, completeness, required time to completion, and readability by four independent raters with different specializations (Paired Wilcoxon test, 95% CI) and inter-rater reliability was assessed (Fleiss’ kappa). A questionnaire was used to compare FTRs vs. SRs with respect to user satisfaction (Mann-Whitney U test, 95% CI). Results By comparison, completeness scores of SRs were significantly higher than FTRs’ completeness scores (94.4% vs. 45.6%, p < 0.001), and pathologies were described in more detail (91.1% vs. 54.5%, p < 0.001). Readability was significantly higher in all SRs when compared to FTRs (100% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.001). The mean time to complete a report, however, was significantly higher in SRs (176.5 vs. 107.3 s, p < 0.001). SRs achieved significantly higher user satisfaction ratings (VAS 8.87 vs. 1.41, p < 0.001) and a very high inter-rater reliability (Fleiss’ kappa 0.92). Conclusions As compared to FTRs, SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations are more comprehensive and easier to understand. On the balance, the additional time needed for completing a SR is negligible. Also, SRs yield high inter-rater reliability and may be used for high-quality scientific data analyses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…stage, differentiation, location, margins of resection and dysplasia where applicable. Preoperative staging of the tumours has been performed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the rectum and endorectal ultrasound (EUS), which are proven to have high diagnostic accuracy when combined (21)(22)(23)(24). We have an established follow-up protocol for these patients with an intensive 5-year surveillance consisting of 6 monthly endoscopy, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), MRI scan and computed tomography (CT) scan for 3 years, which is altered to annual surveillance in years 4 and 5 (Table I).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

KRAS Mutant Status, p16 and β-catenin Expression May Predict Local Recurrence in Patients Who Underwent Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEMS) for Stage I Rectal Cancer

Sideris

Moorhead

Díaz‐Cano

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Background The method of local excision, that has recently, gained wider acceptance, in early rectal cancer, is transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS). TEMS generally offers advantages in operative access and oncological clearance over transanal resection (TAR), but recently a number of similar logic techniques with various rectal ports for endoscopic excision of rectal tumours has been invented. Those methods are collectively named transanal minimal-invasive surgery (TAMIS) and for oncological purposes they share the same features of local excision as TEMS (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14).TEMS is a minimally invasive technique that was introduced by Buess in the early 1980's (2). Through the new rectoscope with 3D binocular optic and the endoscopic instruments, it offers better access to proximal lesions with lower margin positivity and fragmentation and magnification of the operative field (2, 15). TEMS is a safe procedure that offers low complication rates and peri-operative morbidity (10.7%) (4). There have been multiple studies to suggest that TEMS is the operation of choice for rectal adenomas (1), retrorectal and submucosal rectal lesions (5). Furthermore, TEMS offers the advantage of not damaging the anorectal function (7).TEMS is indicated as a curative treatment for malignant neoplasms that are histologically confirmed as pT1 sm1 carcinomas, whereas T1 sm2-3 and T2 lesions are still under question (8). A number of studies have shown that TEMS can have comparable results with radical surgery (1,8,12,16) for rectal cancer.There has been concern about oncologic outcomes following TEMS (17). Some studies support that there is potentially a higher risk of local recurrence rate with TEMS (8,10,18). Efforts have been made to classify risk with morphological and histological criteria with better patients' selection (1, 6-9); however, the risk stratification remains 5315

show abstract