Literature DB >> 12695833

Reinterpretation of radiological imaging in patients referred to a tertiary referral centre with a suspected pancreatic or hepatobiliary malignancy: impact on treatment strategy.

Esther H B M Tilleman1, Saffire S K S Phoa, Otto M Van Delden, Erik A J Rauws, Thomas M van Gulik, Johan S Laméris, Dirk J Gouma.   

Abstract

Our objective was to determine the clinical importance of reinterpretation of radiological investigations performed in a referring hospital and the value of additional investigations in a referral centre. A panel of four experts retrospectively evaluated the technical quality of radiological investigations and made reinterpretation reports, of 78 patients referred with a suspected pancreatic or hepatobiliary malignancy. The value of additional radiological investigations performed in the referral centre was assessed. The quality of ultrasound and CT examinations was sufficient for reinterpretation in (36 of 69) 52% and (42 of 60) 70%, respectively. The reinterpretation reports of the ultrasound investigations were scored as "in accordance" in (30 of 36) 83%, as "minor discordance" in (3 of 36) 8% and as "major discordance" in (3 of 36) 8%. For CT proportions of (29 of 42) 69%, (8 of 42) 19% and (5 of 42) 12%, respectively, were found. Additional ultrasound ( n=55) showed no additional findings in 16%, minor additional findings in 53% and major additional findings in 31% of cases. For additional spiral CT scan ( n=47) results were of 21, 47 and, 32%, respectively. Reinterpretation of ultrasound and CT resulted in a change in treatment strategy for 7 patients (9%). Additional ultrasound or CT resulted in a change in treatment strategy for 24 patients (30%). Improved communication and reinterpretation of radiological investigations may reduce unnecessary referral.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12695833     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-002-1579-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  7 in total

1.  Radiological error: analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and teamworking.

Authors:  Richard FitzGerald
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-02-23       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Quality outcomes of reinterpretation of brain CT imaging studies by subspecialty experts in neuroradiology.

Authors:  Maryum J Jordan; Johnson B Lightfoote; John E Jordan
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 1.798

3.  Laparoscopy in pancreatic tumors.

Authors:  S V Shrikhande; S G Barreto; P J Shukla
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 1.407

4.  A workstation-integrated peer review quality assurance program: pilot study.

Authors:  Margaret M O'Keeffe; Todd M Davis; Kerry Siminoski
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 1.930

Review 5.  Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review.

Authors:  Håkan Geijer; Mats Geijer
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2018-03-28

6.  Real-world staging computed tomography scanning technique and important reporting discrepancies in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Alexander Grogan; Benjamin Loveday; Michael Michael; Hui-Li Wong; Peter Gibbs; Benjamin Thomson; Belinda Lee; Hyun Soo Ko
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 2.025

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

Authors:  John T Lysack; Monica Hoy; Mark E Hudon; Steven C Nakoneshny; Shamir P Chandarana; T Wayne Matthews; Joseph C Dort
Journal:  J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2013-06-05
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.