Structured Reporting of Computed Tomography in the Staging of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Delphi Consensus Proposal

BackgroundStructured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms during the staging phase in order to improve communication between the...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vincenza Granata, Francesca Coppola, Roberta Grassi, Roberta Fusco, Salvatore Tafuto, Francesco Izzo, Alfonso Reginelli, Nicola Maggialetti, Duccio Buccicardi, Barbara Frittoli, Marco Rengo, Chandra Bortolotto, Roberto Prost, Giorgia Viola Lacasella, Marco Montella, Eleonora Ciaghi, Francesco Bellifemine, Federica De Muzio, Ginevra Danti, Giulia Grazzini, Massimo De Filippo, Salvatore Cappabianca, Carmelo Barresi, Franco Iafrate, Luca Pio Stoppino, Andrea Laghi, Roberto Grassi, Luca Brunese, Emanuele Neri, Vittorio Miele, Lorenzo Faggioni
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/5220edf0a511411ebccb29a0e3cd0600
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
Descripción
Sumario:BackgroundStructured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms during the staging phase in order to improve communication between the radiologist and members of multidisciplinary teams.Materials and MethodsA panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, was established. A Modified Delphi process was used to develop the SR and to assess a level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation.ResultsThe final SR version was built by including n=16 items in the “Patient Clinical Data” section, n=13 items in the “Clinical Evaluation” section, n=8 items in the “Imaging Protocol” section, and n=17 items in the “Report” section. Overall, 54 items were included in the final version of the SR. Both in the first and second round, all sections received more than a good rating: a mean value of 4.7 and range of 4.2-5.0 in the first round and a mean value 4.9 and range of 4.9-5 in the second round. In the first round, the Cα correlation coefficient was a poor 0.57: the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.7 (range 1-5) and 728 (mean value 52.00 and standard deviation 2.83), respectively. In the second round, the Cα correlation coefficient was a good 0.82: the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.9 (range 4-5) and 760 (mean value 54.29 and standard deviation 1.64), respectively.ConclusionsThe present SR, based on a multi-round consensus-building Delphi exercise following in-depth discussion between expert radiologists in gastro-enteric and oncological imaging, derived from a multidisciplinary agreement between a radiologist, medical oncologist and surgeon in order to obtain the most appropriate communication tool for referring physicians.