OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the value of reinterpreting abdominal CT performed at other institutions when assessing the resectability of pancreatic carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three patients (30 men, 23 women; mean age, 62 years) referred to our tertiary care institution with newly diagnosed pancreatic carcinoma had formally reinterpreted abdominal CT scans and available initial reports. CT was performed at community hospitals (n = 47), university hospitals (n = 4), an outpatient clinic (n = 1), and an imaging center (n = 1); reinterpretation was performed by university radiologists with subspecialty expertise in abdominal imaging. On the basis of the initial and reinterpretation reports, the patients were categorized as having resectable or nonresectable disease. Medicare reimbursement rates were assessed. RESULTS: The initial and reinterpretation reports agreed in 36 (68%) of the 53 patients, with the disease of 16 patients considered resectable and 20 unresectable by both reports. In 17 patients (32%), we found discrepancies between the initial and the reinterpretation reports. All discrepancies involved the initial report indicating resectability and the reinterpretation report consistent with nonresectable disease. Discrepancies were resolved by findings at surgery (n = 9), percutaneous biopsy (n = 3), dedicated pancreatic CT (n = 3), dedicated liver CT (n = 1), and follow-up abdominal CT (n = 1); the reinterpretation reports were correct in 16 (94%) of 17 patients. Reimbursement for outside CT reinterpretation, repeated abdominal CT, and an exploratory laparotomy were estimated at $46.45, $414.47, and $16,996.44, respectively. CONCLUSION: Reinterpretation of outside abdominal CT was valuable for determining pancreatic carcinoma resectability and inexpensive when compared with repeating the CT examination or performing an exploratory laparotomy.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the value of reinterpreting abdominal CT performed at other institutions when assessing the resectability of pancreatic carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three patients (30 men, 23 women; mean age, 62 years) referred to our tertiary care institution with newly diagnosed pancreatic carcinoma had formally reinterpreted abdominal CT scans and available initial reports. CT was performed at community hospitals (n = 47), university hospitals (n = 4), an outpatient clinic (n = 1), and an imaging center (n = 1); reinterpretation was performed by university radiologists with subspecialty expertise in abdominal imaging. On the basis of the initial and reinterpretation reports, the patients were categorized as having resectable or nonresectable disease. Medicare reimbursement rates were assessed. RESULTS: The initial and reinterpretation reports agreed in 36 (68%) of the 53 patients, with the disease of 16 patients considered resectable and 20 unresectable by both reports. In 17 patients (32%), we found discrepancies between the initial and the reinterpretation reports. All discrepancies involved the initial report indicating resectability and the reinterpretation report consistent with nonresectable disease. Discrepancies were resolved by findings at surgery (n = 9), percutaneous biopsy (n = 3), dedicated pancreatic CT (n = 3), dedicated liver CT (n = 1), and follow-up abdominal CT (n = 1); the reinterpretation reports were correct in 16 (94%) of 17 patients. Reimbursement for outside CT reinterpretation, repeated abdominal CT, and an exploratory laparotomy were estimated at $46.45, $414.47, and $16,996.44, respectively. CONCLUSION: Reinterpretation of outside abdominal CT was valuable for determining pancreatic carcinoma resectability and inexpensive when compared with repeating the CT examination or performing an exploratory laparotomy.
Authors: Aleksandr Rozenberg; Barry E Kenneally; John A Abraham; Kristin Strogus; Johannes B Roedl; William B Morrison; Adam C Zoga Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Alexander Grogan; Benjamin Loveday; Michael Michael; Hui-Li Wong; Peter Gibbs; Benjamin Thomson; Belinda Lee; Hyun Soo Ko Journal: ANZ J Surg Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 2.025