Structured Reporting of Computed Tomography in the Staging of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Delphi Consensus Proposal

Abstract

BackgroundStructured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms during the staging phase in order to improve communication between the radiologist and members of multidisciplinary teams.Materials and MethodsA panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, was established. A Modified Delphi process was used to develop the SR and to assess a level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation.ResultsThe final SR version was built by including n=16 items in the “Patient Clinical Data” section, n=13 items in the “Clinical Evaluation” section, n=8 items in the “Imaging Protocol” section, and n=17 items in the “Report” section. Overall, 54 items were included in the final version of the SR. Both in the first and second round, all sections received more than a good rating: a mean value of 4.7 and range of 4.2-5.0 in the first round and a mean value 4.9 and range of 4.9-5 in the second round. In the first round, the Cα correlation coefficient was a poor 0.57: the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.7 (range 1-5) and 728 (mean value 52.00 and standard deviation 2.83), respectively. In the second round, the Cα correlation coefficient was a good 0.82: the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.9 (range 4-5) and 760 (mean value 54.29 and standard deviation 1.64), respectively.ConclusionsThe present SR, based on a multi-round consensus-building Delphi exercise following in-depth discussion between expert radiologists in gastro-enteric and oncological imaging, derived from a multidisciplinary agreement between a radiologist, medical oncologist and surgeon in order to obtain the most appropriate communication tool for referring physicians.

Oral presentation assessment and image reading behaviour on brain computed tomography reading in novice clinical learners: an eye-tracking study

“…Disease-specific report templates may improve the clarity and quality of reports, while checklist style reports could reduce diagnostic errors, particularly in incidental findings [39]. Several studies have achieved consensus in structured medical imaging reporting [40,41]. For novice learners, the learning curve in image reading may include a comprehensive reading of all anatomically important areas, knowing where to look [42], reducing interpretation failures leading to under-or over-diagnosis [43], handling multi-target lesion images [44], and reducing errors in non-serious lesions [44].…”

Complications Risk Assessment and Imaging Findings of Thermal Ablation Treatment in Liver Cancers: What the Radiologist Should Expect

“…However, inconsistencies with regard to content, style, and presentation can hamper information transfer and diminish the clarity of the reports, which can in turn adversely affect the extraction of the required key information by the referring physician. Therefore, FRT should be organized and re-orientated toward structured reports (SR) [ 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 ]. According to the European Society of Radiology (ESR) paper on SR in radiology, the three main goals for moving from FTR to SR are quality, datafication/quantification and accessibility [ 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 ].…”

“…Therefore, FRT should be organized and re-orientated toward structured reports (SR) [ 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 ]. According to the European Society of Radiology (ESR) paper on SR in radiology, the three main goals for moving from FTR to SR are quality, datafication/quantification and accessibility [ 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 ]. With regard to quality, this is correlated to standardization.…”

“…In this scenario, by using a dedicated report template, the radiologist has a list of predefined relevant items for the case at hand, ensuring that no important data is missed. This should not only guarantee a consistently high quality of final report, but also aid in the management of patients [ 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 ].…”

Structured Reporting in Radiological Settings: Pitfalls and Perspectives

“…In this context, SR could help and guide the radiologist, allowing them to identify all the significant features that could modify patient management [ 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 ].…”