Vaios Hatzoglou1,2, Antonio M Omuro3,2, Sofia Haque1, Yasmin Khakoo4, Ian Ganly5, Jung Hun Oh6, Amita Shukla-Dave1,6, Robin Fatovic1, Joshua Gaal1, Andrei I Holodny1,2. 1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 2. Brain Tumor Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Neurology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. Department of Surgery, Head and Neck Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 6. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
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 a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of initial outside and second-opinion radiology reports from 300 computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging 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 the 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 was 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 the 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. Cancer 2016.
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 a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of initial outside and second-opinion radiology reports from 300 computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging 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 the 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 was 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 the 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 cancerpatients. Cancer 2016.
Authors: William K Erly; Boyd C Ashdown; Richard W Lucio; Raymond F Carmody; Joachim F Seeger; Jennifer N Alcala Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Christian G Downs; Liz Fowler; Michael Kolodziej; Lee H Newcomer; Mohammed S Ogaily; W Thomas Purcell; John C Winkelmann; Clifford Goodman Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Laurie A Loevner; Adina I Sonners; Brian J Schulman; Kerstin Slawek; Randal S Weber; David I Rosenthal; Gul Moonis; Ara A Chalian Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2002 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Yulia Lakhman; Melvin D'Anastasi; Maura Miccò; Chiara Scelzo; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Stephanie Nougaret; Ramon E Sosa; Dennis S Chi; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Hedvig Hricak; Evis Sala Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sharyl J Nass; Christopher R Cogle; James A Brink; Curtis P Langlotz; Erin P Balogh; Ada Muellner; Dana Siegal; Richard L Schilsky; Hedvig Hricak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lalanthica V Yogendran; Tuba Kalelioglu; Joseph H Donahue; Haroon Ahmad; Kester A Phillips; Nicole M Calautti; Maria-Beatriz Lopes; Ashok R Asthagiri; Benjamin Purow; David Schiff; Sohil H Patel; Camilo E Fadul Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Leonardo K Bittencourt; Melvin D'Anastasi; Romeu Domingues; Pek-Lan Khong; Zarina Lockhat; Ada Muellner; Maximilian F Reiser; Richard L Schilsky; Hedvig Hricak Journal: J Glob Oncol Date: 2017-09-08