The value of specialist oncological radiology review of cross-sectional imaging.
AffiliationDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Withington, Manchester, UK.
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractAIM: To determine whether specialist oncological radiology review of outside cross-sectional imaging affects patient management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five hundred and twenty-six patients attending a regional oncology centre had review of outside cross-sectional imaging over a 1-year period. The number of examinations per patient, time interval between examination and review request, and examination technical adequacy were recorded in each case. More detailed evaluation of 124 patients included comparison of outside and review reports for major differences in interpretation by a medical oncologist who also evaluated the effect of the review on patient management. Examinations resulting in major report discrepancies were subjected to independent radiological adjudication. RESULTS: Eighty-one percent of examinations were reviewed within 3 months of being performed and 94% were considered technically adequate. The hard copy images provided were incomplete in 33% of cases and a calibration rule was absent in 9%. There was a major difference in interpretation in 34% of examinations, the most common cause being differences in interpretation of lymphadenopathy (52%), particularly in the mediastinum (19%). Other problems identified were the failure to record disease dimensions and absence of specific information on key organs in the outside reports. Specialist radiology review changed radiological staging in 19% of patients, affected management in 7% of patients and resulted in a change in treatment in 4%. There was no correlation between management change and any particular tumour type. In 27% of cases, treatment decisions had been made before the review was requested. CONCLUSION: Specialist oncological radiology review of outside cross-sectional imaging changed radiological staging in 19% of cases but had little impact on patient management. Oncological cross-sectional imaging techniques in the North West of England are of high quality, probably helped by recent RCR guidelines.
CitationThe value of specialist oncological radiology review of cross-sectional imaging. 1999, 54 (3):149-54; discussion 154-5 Clin Radiol
- Oncological radiology.
- Authors: Spencer JA
- Issue date: 2001 Jul
- Second-opinion interpretations of neuroimaging studies by oncologic neuroradiologists can help reduce errors in cancer care.
- Authors: Hatzoglou V, Omuro AM, Haque S, Khakoo Y, Ganly I, Oh JH, Shukla-Dave A, Fatovic R, Gaal J, Holodny AI
- Issue date: 2016 Sep 1
- Eight CT lessons that we learned the hard way: an analysis of current patterns of radiological error and discrepancy with particular emphasis on CT.
- Authors: McCreadie G, Oliver TB
- Issue date: 2009 May
- Incorporating a radiologist in a radiation oncology department: a new model of care?
- Authors: Dimigen M, Vinod SK, Lim K
- Issue date: 2014 Oct
- [Quality control of outpatient imaging examinations in North Rhine-Westphalia, Part II].
- Authors: Krug B, Boettge M, Reineke T, Coburger S, Zähringer M, Harnischmacher U, Lüngen M, Lauterbach KW, Lehmacher W, Lackner K
- Issue date: 2003 Mar