The value of specialist oncological radiology review of cross-sectional imaging

Loughrey, Gareth J.; Carrington, Bernadette M; Anderson, Heather; Dobson, M J; Feng, Peng

doi:10.1016/s0009-9260(99)91003-6

Cited by 40 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings add to the existing literature demonstrating that reinterpretation of imaging studies by subspecialty radiologists in different fields (eg, pediatric imaging, emergency radiology, and neuroradiology) has a positive impact on patient care . Our findings are also in agreement with studies from tertiary cancer centers concluding that reinterpretation by radiologists specialized in oncologic imaging has a clinically important effect on the accuracy of cancer patient staging, prognostication, and management . The rates of clinically important or major discrepancies between reports in these studies range from 1.2% to 40%.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Second‐opinion interpretations of neuroimaging studies by oncologic neuroradiologists can help reduce errors in cancer care

Hatzoglou

Omuro

Haque

et al. 2016

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The purpose of this study was to investigate the utility and clinical impact of second-opinion interpretations of outside neuroimaging studies by oncologic neuroradiologists at an NCI-designated cancer center. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of initial outside and second-opinion radiology reports from 300 CT and MRI neuroimaging studies and identified cases with discrepancies between the two reports. An adult neuro-oncologist, pediatric neuro-oncologist, and head and neck surgeon reviewed each pair of discrepant reports based on their area of expertise, patient age, and type of study performed. The clinicians were blinded to the origin of each report and recorded whether the differences in the reports would have led to a change in patient management and/or disease staging. Histopathologic analysis, clinical assessment, and/or minimum 3-month imaging follow-up served as the reference standards to establish which of the 2 reports were correct. Results Among the 283 cases that met our study criteria, there were 55 neuroimaging studies with disagreements (19%) between the initial outside report and second-opinion interpretation. Patient management and/or disease stage would have been altered in 42 of 283 cases (15%) based on report differences as determined by the 2 neuro-oncologists and surgeon participating in the study. Sufficient follow-up was available in 35 of 42 cases (83%). The second-opinion interpretation was correct 100% of the time (35/35). Conclusion Second-opinion interpretations of neuroimaging studies by subspecialized oncologic neuroradiologists provide added value by reducing error and optimizing the care of cancer patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Second‐opinion interpretations of neuroimaging studies by oncologic neuroradiologists can help reduce errors in cancer care

Hatzoglou

Omuro

Haque

et al. 2016

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reason for the differences between the participating study centers and the expert's statement could be as follows: imaging diagnosis are inherently subjective. There are several studies available which support this fact [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15,16]. Another reason is the scoring system used by the GHSG, which defines the tracheal bifurcation as the boundary between the upper and the lower mediastinum.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Quality control of involved-field radiotherapy for patients with early stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma based on a central prospective review

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recently, Wheless et al [9] showed that, following case review at a multidisciplinary head and neck tumor board, 27% of patients had a change in tumor diagnosis, stage, or treatment plan. In other oncological and non-oncological domains, studies of radiologist second opinions have found discrepancy rates of 11–49% for diagnosis or staging and 7–37% for patient management [10-16]. These rates are similar to those found for expert second opinions in pathology, with reported discrepancy rates of 7–66% (including changes from a benign to a malignant diagnosis or vice versa) resulting in a change in patient management in 1–28% [17-28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of neuroradiologist second opinion on staging and management of head and neck cancer

Lysack

Hoy

Hudon

et al. 2013

Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivePatients with head and neck cancer frequently present to academic tertiary referral centers with imaging studies that have been performed and interpreted elsewhere. At our institution, these outside head and neck imaging studies undergo formal second opinion reporting by a fellowship-trained academic neuroradiologist with expertise in head and neck imaging. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of this practice on cancer staging and patient management.MethodsOur institutional review board approved the retrospective review of randomized original and second opinion reports for 94 consecutive cases of biopsy proven or clinically suspected head and neck cancer in calendar year 2010. Discrepancy rates for staging and recommended patient management were calculated and, for the 32% (30/94) of cases that subsequently went to surgery, the accuracies of the reports were determined relative to the pathologic staging gold standard.ResultsFollowing neuroradiologist second opinion review, the cancer stage changed in 56% (53/94) of cases and the recommended management changed in 38% (36/94) of patients with head and neck cancer. When compared to the pathologic staging gold standard, the second opinion was correct 93% (28/30) of the time.ConclusionIn a majority of patients with head and neck cancer, neuroradiologist second opinion review of their outside imaging studies resulted in an accurate change in their cancer stage and this frequently led to a change in their management plan.

show abstract

The value of specialist oncological radiology review of cross-sectional imaging

Cited by 40 publications

References 1 publication

Second‐opinion interpretations of neuroimaging studies by oncologic neuroradiologists can help reduce errors in cancer care

Second‐opinion interpretations of neuroimaging studies by oncologic neuroradiologists can help reduce errors in cancer care

Quality control of involved-field radiotherapy for patients with early stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma based on a central prospective review

Impact of neuroradiologist second opinion on staging and management of head and neck cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About