Multidisciplinary Imaging Review Conference Improves Neuro-oncology Radiation Treatment Planning and Follow-up.
head and neck cancer
radiation oncology
skull base tumor
tumor boards
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Oct 2019
10 Oct 2019
Historique:
entrez:
28
11
2019
pubmed:
28
11
2019
medline:
28
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To review the impact of a weekly multidisciplinary neuroradiology imaging review on the management of patients undergoing radiotherapy. A prospective study of the management of 118 patients (30=head and neck, 40=skull base, central nervous system=48) was conducted over a 12-month period from January 2018 through January 2019. After review of each patient's history and relevant imaging, a radiation oncologist completed a form detailing the changes that were made in diagnosis and management. Imaging source (external and internal examinations), availability of outside reports, report timeliness, the value of reports, changes in interpretation, changes in clinical management, and changes in prognosis were documented. Changes in interpretation and management were designated as major or minor depending on the significance of the change. The managing radiation oncologist indicated whether the imaging review conference substituted for a peer-to-peer consultation with a neuroradiologist. Nearly half (47%) of all patients had a change in interpretation. Of those, 32% of patients had a major change in interpretation, while 14% had a minor change in interpretation. The existence of the multidisciplinary imaging review conference prevented a peer-to-peer consultation (interruption) by the radiation oncologists to the neuroradiologists in 90% of the cases presented. Further analysis was performed. The involvement of neuroradiologists in a joint radiation oncology imaging review conference resulted in changes in diagnostic imaging interpretation that led to significant changes in management, expected prognosis, and workflow.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31772852
doi: 10.7759/cureus.5882
pmc: PMC6837274
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e5882Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019, Rao et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Lancet Oncol. 2006 Nov;7(11):951-4
pubmed: 17081921
Acad Radiol. 2018 Dec;25(12):1515-1520
pubmed: 29605562
J Thorac Oncol. 2007 Jan;2(1):69-72
pubmed: 17410013
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010 Nov;143(5):650-4
pubmed: 20974334
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2009 Sep;21(7):525-31
pubmed: 19535232
Eur J Cancer. 2007 Apr;43(6):1002-10
pubmed: 17329094
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Mar;20(3):715-22
pubmed: 23064794
J Neurooncol. 2017 Dec;135(3):529-534
pubmed: 28836140
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002 Nov-Dec;23(10):1622-6
pubmed: 12427610
Colorectal Dis. 2008 Jan;10(1):63-8
pubmed: 18078461
J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11(4):205-10
pubmed: 16007751
Oncology. 2008;75(3-4):186-91
pubmed: 18841033
Acad Radiol. 2014 Dec;21(12):1623-8
pubmed: 25281360
N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 9;354(6):567-78
pubmed: 16467544
Urol Oncol. 2011 Jul-Aug;29(4):378-82
pubmed: 19576797