Literature DB >> 18480475

Missed lesions at abdominal oncologic CT: lessons learned from quality assurance.

Bettina Siewert1, Jacob Sosna, Ann McNamara, Vassilios Raptopoulos, Jonathan B Kruskal.   

Abstract

The evaluation of oncology patients represents a substantial volume of the workload in many radiology departments. Interpreting the results of oncologic examinations is often challenging and time-consuming because many abnormalities are identified in the same examination and must be compared with the findings in previous studies. However, errors in the interpretation of oncologic computed tomographic (CT) scans can have significant effects on patient care. These effects may range from withdrawal from a clinical trial or cessation of therapy to repeat CT examination because of a technically inadequate study, CT-guided biopsy of newly identified lesions, or initiation of therapy for previously unrecognized lesions. A root cause analysis of reported errors in the interpretation of abdominal and pelvic CT scans led to the identification of potential pitfalls that may be encountered when interpreting oncologic CT scans and factors that contribute to these errors. Awareness of the spectrum of factors that contribute to misinterpretation of CT scans in oncology patients may improve the performance of the individual radiologist and ultimately translate into improved patient care. Copyright RSNA, 2008.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18480475     DOI: 10.1148/rg.283075188

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiographics        ISSN: 0271-5333            Impact factor:   5.333


  8 in total

1.  Diagnostic errors when interpreting abdominopelvic computed tomography: a pictorial review.

Authors:  Seong Jong Yun; Hyun Cheol Kim; Dal Mo Yang; Sang Won Kim; Sun Jung Rhee; Sung Eun Ahn
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Error in radiology-where are we now?

Authors:  Giles Maskell
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Individualized and generalized models for predicting observer performance on liver metastasis detection using CT.

Authors:  Parvathy Sudhir Pillai; David R Holmes; Rickey Carter; Akitoshi Inoue; David A Cook; Ron Karwoski; Jeff L Fidler; Joel G Fletcher; Shuai Leng; Lifeng Yu; Cynthia H McCollough; Scott S Hsieh
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2022-09-13

Review 4.  Blind spots at oncological CT: lessons learned from PET/CT.

Authors:  Jacob Sosna; Steven J Esses; Nikolay Yeframov; Hanna Bernstine; Tamar Sella; Shifra Fraifeld; Jonathan B Kruskal; David Groshar
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2012-08-10       Impact factor: 3.909

5.  Value of Clinical Information on Radiology Reports in Oncological Imaging.

Authors:  Felix Schön; Rebecca Sinzig; Felix Walther; Christoph Georg Radosa; Heiner Nebelung; Maria Eberlein-Gonska; Ralf-Thorsten Hoffmann; Jens-Peter Kühn; Sophia Freya Ulrike Blum
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-30

Review 6.  Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable?

Authors:  Adrian P Brady
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2016-12-07

7.  The Back Alleys and Dark Corners of Abdomen and Pelvis Computed Tomography: The Most Frequent Sites of Missed Findings in the Multiplanar Era.

Authors:  Mark A Kliewer; Mikala R Brinkman; J Louis Hinshaw
Journal:  J Clin Imaging Sci       Date:  2020-11-02

8.  The role of unenhanced phase of the liver in the scanning protocol of metastatic breast cancer: implications for sensitivity, response evaluation and size measurement.

Authors:  Juan José Arenas-Jiménez; Elena García-Garrigós; Mariana Cecilia Planells-Alduvín
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 2.991

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.