OBJECTIVE: Tumor quantification is essential for determining the clinical efficacy and response to established and evolving therapeutic agents in cancer trials. The purpose of this study was to seek the opinions of oncologists and radiologists about quantitative interactive and multimedia reporting. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to 253 oncologists and registrars and to 35 radiologists at our institution through an online survey application. Questions were asked about current reporting methods, methods for Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) tumor measurement, and preferred reporting format. RESULTS: The overall response rates were 43.1% (109/253) for oncologists and 80.0% (28/35) for radiologists. The oncologists treated more than 40 tumor types. Most of the oncologists (65.7% [67/102]) and many radiologists (44.4% [12/27]) (p = 0.020) deemed the current traditional qualitative radiology reports insufficient for reporting tumor burden and communicating measurements. Most of the radiologists (77.8% [21/27]) and oncologists (85.5% [71/83]) (p = 0.95) agreed that key images with measurement annotations helped in finding previously measured tumors; however, only 43% of radiologists regularly saved key images. Both oncologists (64.2% [70/109]) and radiologists (67.9% [19/28]) (p = 0.83) preferred the ability to hyperlink measurements from reports to images of lesions as opposed to text-only reports. Approximately 60% of oncologists indicated that they handwrote tumor measurements on RECIST forms, and 40% used various digital formats. Most of the oncologists (93%) indicated that managing tumor measurements within a PACS would be superior to handwritten data entry and retyping of data into a cancer database. CONCLUSION: Oncologists and radiologists agree that quantitative interactive reporting would be superior to traditional text-only qualitative reporting for assessing tumor burden in cancer trials. A PACS reporting system that enhances and promotes collaboration between radiologists and oncologists improves quantitative reporting of tumors.
OBJECTIVE:Tumor quantification is essential for determining the clinical efficacy and response to established and evolving therapeutic agents in cancer trials. The purpose of this study was to seek the opinions of oncologists and radiologists about quantitative interactive and multimedia reporting. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to 253 oncologists and registrars and to 35 radiologists at our institution through an online survey application. Questions were asked about current reporting methods, methods for Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) tumor measurement, and preferred reporting format. RESULTS: The overall response rates were 43.1% (109/253) for oncologists and 80.0% (28/35) for radiologists. The oncologists treated more than 40 tumor types. Most of the oncologists (65.7% [67/102]) and many radiologists (44.4% [12/27]) (p = 0.020) deemed the current traditional qualitative radiology reports insufficient for reporting tumor burden and communicating measurements. Most of the radiologists (77.8% [21/27]) and oncologists (85.5% [71/83]) (p = 0.95) agreed that key images with measurement annotations helped in finding previously measured tumors; however, only 43% of radiologists regularly saved key images. Both oncologists (64.2% [70/109]) and radiologists (67.9% [19/28]) (p = 0.83) preferred the ability to hyperlink measurements from reports to images of lesions as opposed to text-only reports. Approximately 60% of oncologists indicated that they handwrote tumor measurements on RECIST forms, and 40% used various digital formats. Most of the oncologists (93%) indicated that managing tumor measurements within a PACS would be superior to handwritten data entry and retyping of data into a cancer database. CONCLUSION: Oncologists and radiologists agree that quantitative interactive reporting would be superior to traditional text-only qualitative reporting for assessing tumor burden in cancer trials. A PACS reporting system that enhances and promotes collaboration between radiologists and oncologists improves quantitative reporting of tumors.
Entities:
Keywords:
productivity; quality improvement; radiology reports; tumor metrics; work flow
Authors: B D Cheson; S J Horning; B Coiffier; M A Shipp; R I Fisher; J M Connors; T A Lister; J Vose; A Grillo-López; A Hagenbeek; F Cabanillas; D Klippensten; W Hiddemann; R Castellino; N L Harris; J O Armitage; W Carter; R Hoppe; G P Canellos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Axel Hoos; Steven O'Day; Jeffrey S Weber; Omid Hamid; Celeste Lebbé; Michele Maio; Michael Binder; Oliver Bohnsack; Geoffrey Nichol; Rachel Humphrey; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Florian Jungmann; G Arnhold; B Kämpgen; T Jorg; C Düber; P Mildenberger; R Kloeckner Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Nikhil Goyal; Andrea B Apolo; Eliana D Berman; Mohammad Hadi Bagheri; Jason E Levine; John W Glod; Rosandra N Kaplan; Laura B Machado; Les R Folio Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Ahmed Hosny; Chintan Parmar; John Quackenbush; Lawrence H Schwartz; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 60.716
Authors: Raphael Sexauer; Thomas Weikert; Kevin Mader; Andreas Wicki; Sabine Schädelin; Bram Stieltjes; Jens Bremerich; Gregor Sommer; Alexander W Sauter Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Christopher J Roth; David A Clunie; David J Vining; Seth J Berkowitz; Alejandro Berlin; Jean-Pierre Bissonnette; Shawn D Clark; Toby C Cornish; Monief Eid; Cree M Gaskin; Alexander K Goel; Genevieve C Jacobs; David Kwan; Damien M Luviano; Morgan P McBee; Kelly Miller; Abdul Moiz Hafiz; Ceferino Obcemea; Anil V Parwani; Veronica Rotemberg; Elliot L Silver; Erik S Storm; James E Tcheng; Karen S Thullner; Les R Folio Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 4.056