Huy M Do1, Lillian G Spear2, Moozhan Nikpanah3, S Mojdeh Mirmomen4, Laura B Machado5, Alexandra P Toscano2, Baris Turkbey6, Mohammad Hadi Bagheri3, James L Gulley7, Les R Folio3. 1. Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. Electronic address: huy.do@nih.gov. 2. Genitourinary Malignancies Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Current Affiliation: University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. 3. Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. 4. Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging Laboratory, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Department of Radiology, Mercy Catholic Medical Center, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 6. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 7. Genitourinary Malignancies Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Our primary aim was to improve radiology reports by increasing concordance of target lesion measurements with oncology records using radiology preprocessors (RP). Faster notification of incidental actionable findings to referring clinicians and clinical radiologist exam interpretation time savings with RPs quantifying tumor burden were also assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective quality improvement initiative, RPs annotated lesions before radiologist interpretation of CT exams. Clinical radiologists then hyperlinked approved measurements into interactive reports during interpretations. RPs evaluated concordance with our tumor measurement radiologist, the determinant of tumor burden. Actionable finding detection and notification times were also deduced. Clinical radiologist interpretation times were calculated from established average CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis interpretation times. RESULTS: RPs assessed 1287 body CT exams with 812 follow-up CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis studies; 95 (11.7%) of which had 241 verified target lesions. There was improved concordance (67.8% vs. 22.5%) of target lesion measurements. RPs detected 93.1% incidental actionable findings with faster clinician notification by a median time of 1 hour (range: 15 minutes-16 hours). Radiologist exam interpretation times decreased by 37%. CONCLUSIONS: This workflow resulted in three-fold improved target lesion measurement concordance with oncology records, earlier detection and faster notification of incidental actionable findings to referring clinicians, and decreased exam interpretation times for clinical radiologists. These findings demonstrate potential roles for automation (such as AI) to improve report value, worklist prioritization, and patient care. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Our primary aim was to improve radiology reports by increasing concordance of target lesion measurements with oncology records using radiology preprocessors (RP). Faster notification of incidental actionable findings to referring clinicians and clinical radiologist exam interpretation time savings with RPs quantifying tumor burden were also assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective quality improvement initiative, RPs annotated lesions before radiologist interpretation of CT exams. Clinical radiologists then hyperlinked approved measurements into interactive reports during interpretations. RPs evaluated concordance with our tumor measurement radiologist, the determinant of tumor burden. Actionable finding detection and notification times were also deduced. Clinical radiologist interpretation times were calculated from established average CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis interpretation times. RESULTS: RPs assessed 1287 body CT exams with 812 follow-up CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis studies; 95 (11.7%) of which had 241 verified target lesions. There was improved concordance (67.8% vs. 22.5%) of target lesion measurements. RPs detected 93.1% incidental actionable findings with faster clinician notification by a median time of 1 hour (range: 15 minutes-16 hours). Radiologist exam interpretation times decreased by 37%. CONCLUSIONS: This workflow resulted in three-fold improved target lesion measurement concordance with oncology records, earlier detection and faster notification of incidental actionable findings to referring clinicians, and decreased exam interpretation times for clinical radiologists. These findings demonstrate potential roles for automation (such as AI) to improve report value, worklist prioritization, and patient care. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Curtis P Langlotz; Bibb Allen; Bradley J Erickson; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Keith Bigelow; Tessa S Cook; Adam E Flanders; Matthew P Lungren; David S Mendelson; Jeffrey D Rudie; Ge Wang; Krishna Kandarpa Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Paul A Larson; Lincoln L Berland; Brent Griffith; Charles E Kahn; Lawrence A Liebscher Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Luciano M Prevedello; Barbaros S Erdal; John L Ryu; Kevin J Little; Mutlu Demirer; Songyue Qian; Richard D White Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Alexander J Ritchie; Calvin Sanghera; Colin Jacobs; Wei Zhang; John Mayo; Heidi Schmidt; Michel Gingras; Sergio Pasian; Lori Stewart; Scott Tsai; Daria Manos; Jean M Seely; Paul Burrowes; Rick Bhatia; Sukhinder Atkar-Khattra; Bram van Ginneken; Martin Tammemagi; Ming Sound Tsao; Stephen Lam Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Ken Chang; Niranjan Balachandar; Carson Lam; Darvin Yi; James Brown; Andrew Beers; Bruce Rosen; Daniel L Rubin; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Yasasvi Tadavarthi; Valeria Makeeva; William Wagstaff; Henry Zhan; Anna Podlasek; Neil Bhatia; Marta Heilbrun; Elizabeth Krupinski; Nabile Safdar; Imon Banerjee; Judy Gichoya; Hari Trivedi Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2022-02-02
Authors: Yu Jin Seol; So Hyun Park; Young Jae Kim; Young-Taek Park; Hee Young Lee; Kwang Gi Kim Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 3.847
Authors: Minu Agarwal; Christian B van der Pol; Michael N Patlas; Amar Udare; Andrew D Chung; Julian Rubino Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Julie Adhya; Charles Li; Laura Eisenmenger; Russell Cerejo; Ashis Tayal; Michael Goldberg; Warren Chang Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2021-04-28
Authors: Joy T Wu; Ken C L Wong; Yaniv Gur; Nadeem Ansari; Alexandros Karargyris; Arjun Sharma; Michael Morris; Babak Saboury; Hassan Ahmad; Orest Boyko; Ali Syed; Ashutosh Jadhav; Hongzhi Wang; Anup Pillai; Satyananda Kashyap; Mehdi Moradi; Tanveer Syeda-Mahmood Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-10-01
Authors: Tingting Qiao; Simin Liu; Zhijun Cui; Xiaqing Yu; Haidong Cai; Huijuan Zhang; Ming Sun; Zhongwei Lv; Dan Li Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 1.671
Authors: Joseph Waller; Aisling O'Connor; Eleeza Rafaat; Ahmad Amireh; John Dempsey; Clarissa Martin; Muhammad Umair Journal: Pol J Radiol Date: 2022-02-25
Authors: Martin J Willemink; Wojciech A Koszek; Cailin Hardell; Jie Wu; Dominik Fleischmann; Hugh Harvey; Les R Folio; Ronald M Summers; Daniel L Rubin; Matthew P Lungren Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 11.105