OBJECTIVES: To assess a disease-specific structured report (dsSR) for CT staging of ovarian malignancy compared to a simple structured report (sSR). METHODS: This is a HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved study with waiver of informed consent. An adnexal mass-specific structured reporting CT template was developed in collaboration between gynecologic oncologists and diagnostic radiologists. The study population included 24 consecutive women who had a staging CT prior to undergoing debulking surgery for a primary ovarian malignancy. Objective evaluation by radiologists for the presence of 19 key features and subjective evaluation by gynecologic oncologists were performed to assess the clarity and usefulness for procedural planning of dsSR and sSR. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were assessed using operating room notes and pathology reports as the reference standard. RESULTS: Fewer key features were missing from dsSR than sSR: 0.2 ± 0.8 (range 0-2) vs.10.2 ± 1.7 (range 7-14), respectively (p < 0.0001). Compared to sSR, gynecologic oncologists deemed dsSR more helpful (4.3 ± 0.7 vs. 3.7 ± 0.8, p < 0.0001) and easier to understand (4.3 ± 0.6 vs. 3.9 ± 0.7, p = 0.0057) (on a scale 0-5, 0 not helpful/very difficult to understand; 5 extremely helpful/very clear to understand). Gynecologic oncologists reported a higher rate of potential to modify their surgical approach based on dsSR (33-42%) compared to sSR (13-17%), p = 0.004. CONCLUSIONS: Disease-specific structured reports were more reliable than simple structured reports in describing key features essential for procedural planning. dsSR was described as more helpful and easier to understand and more likely to lead to modification of the surgical approach by gynecologic oncologists compared to sSR. KEY POINTS: • Disease-specific structured report is easier to understand and more helpful for planning gynecological surgery as compared with simple structured report. • Disease-specific structured report for pre-operative evaluation of ovarian cancer provides better documentation of essential features required for surgical planning as compared with simple structured report. • Disease-specific structured report has the potential to modify the surgical approach as assessed by gynecologic oncologists.
OBJECTIVES: To assess a disease-specific structured report (dsSR) for CT staging of ovarian malignancy compared to a simple structured report (sSR). METHODS: This is a HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved study with waiver of informed consent. An adnexal mass-specific structured reporting CT template was developed in collaboration between gynecologic oncologists and diagnostic radiologists. The study population included 24 consecutive women who had a staging CT prior to undergoing debulking surgery for a primary ovarian malignancy. Objective evaluation by radiologists for the presence of 19 key features and subjective evaluation by gynecologic oncologists were performed to assess the clarity and usefulness for procedural planning of dsSR and sSR. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were assessed using operating room notes and pathology reports as the reference standard. RESULTS: Fewer key features were missing from dsSR than sSR: 0.2 ± 0.8 (range 0-2) vs.10.2 ± 1.7 (range 7-14), respectively (p < 0.0001). Compared to sSR, gynecologic oncologists deemed dsSR more helpful (4.3 ± 0.7 vs. 3.7 ± 0.8, p < 0.0001) and easier to understand (4.3 ± 0.6 vs. 3.9 ± 0.7, p = 0.0057) (on a scale 0-5, 0 not helpful/very difficult to understand; 5 extremely helpful/very clear to understand). Gynecologic oncologists reported a higher rate of potential to modify their surgical approach based on dsSR (33-42%) compared to sSR (13-17%), p = 0.004. CONCLUSIONS: Disease-specific structured reports were more reliable than simple structured reports in describing key features essential for procedural planning. dsSR was described as more helpful and easier to understand and more likely to lead to modification of the surgical approach by gynecologic oncologists compared to sSR. KEY POINTS: • Disease-specific structured report is easier to understand and more helpful for planning gynecological surgery as compared with simple structured report. • Disease-specific structured report for pre-operative evaluation of ovarian cancer provides better documentation of essential features required for surgical planning as compared with simple structured report. • Disease-specific structured report has the potential to modify the surgical approach as assessed by gynecologic oncologists.
Authors: Annette J Johnson; Michael Y M Chen; J Shannon Swan; Kimberly E Applegate; Benjamin Littenberg Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-08-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Charles E Kahn; Curtis P Langlotz; Elizabeth S Burnside; John A Carrino; David S Channin; David M Hovsepian; Daniel L Rubin Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ignace Vergote; Claes G Tropé; Frédéric Amant; Gunnar B Kristensen; Tom Ehlen; Nick Johnson; René H M Verheijen; Maria E L van der Burg; Angel J Lacave; Pierluigi Benedetti Panici; Gemma G Kenter; Antonio Casado; Cesar Mendiola; Corneel Coens; Leen Verleye; Gavin C E Stuart; Sergio Pecorelli; Nick S Reed Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elizabeth A Sadowski; Atul B Shinagare; Hyesun Park; Olga R Brook; Rosemarie Forstner; Sumer K Wallace; Jeanne M Horowitz; Neil Horowitz; Marcia Javitt; Priyanka Jha; Aki Kido; Yulia Lakhman; Susanna I Lee; Lucia Manganaro; Katherine E Maturen; Stephanie Nougaret; Liina Poder; Gaiane M Rauch; Caroline Reinhold; Evis Sala; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Herbert Alberto Vargas; Aradhana Venkatesan; Olivera Nikolic; Andrea G Rockall Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Jeannette C Ederveen; Simon W Nienhuijs; Saskia Jol; Simon G F Robben; Joost Nederend Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 5.315