Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective

Abstract Background Structured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists’ opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist’s report t...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa, Dania Cioni, Emanuele Neri
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	BMC 2021
Materias:	Medical oncologist Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging Communication Structured report Standardized criteria Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine R895-920 Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens RC254-282
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe82021-11-28T12:41:29ZRadiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective10.1186/s40644-021-00431-51470-7330https://doaj.org/article/09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe82021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330Abstract Background Structured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists’ opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist’s report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication. Methods A 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation. Results A total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1–3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists’ service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists’ service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist. Conclusion Structured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging.Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-PopaDania CioniEmanuele NeriBMCarticleMedical oncologistRadiologist specialized in oncologic imagingCommunicationStructured reportStandardized criteriaMedical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicineR895-920Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogensRC254-282ENCancer Imaging, Vol 21, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medical oncologist Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging Communication Structured report Standardized criteria Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine R895-920 Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens RC254-282
spellingShingle	Medical oncologist Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging Communication Structured report Standardized criteria Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine R895-920 Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens RC254-282 Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa Dania Cioni Emanuele Neri Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective
description	Abstract Background Structured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists’ opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist’s report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication. Methods A 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation. Results A total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1–3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists’ service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists’ service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist. Conclusion Structured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging.
format	article
author	Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa Dania Cioni Emanuele Neri
author_facet	Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa Dania Cioni Emanuele Neri
author_sort	Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa
title	Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective
title_short	Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective
title_full	Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective
title_fullStr	Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective
title_full_unstemmed	Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective
title_sort	radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective
publisher	BMC
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8
work_keys_str_mv	AT elisabetavaleriaspinupopa radiologyreportinginoncologyoncologistsperspective AT daniacioni radiologyreportinginoncologyoncologistsperspective AT emanueleneri radiologyreportinginoncologyoncologistsperspective
_version_	1718407814588661760

Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective

Ejemplares similares