Development and application of an electronic synoptic report for reporting and management of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening examination.
CT scan
Lung cancer screening
Radiology report
Synoptic report
Journal
BMC medical imaging
ISSN: 1471-2342
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Imaging
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 06 2022
11 06 2022
Historique:
received:
11
04
2022
accepted:
31
05
2022
entrez:
11
6
2022
pubmed:
12
6
2022
medline:
15
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Interpretation of Low Dose CT scans and protocol driven management of findings is a key aspect of lung cancer screening program performance. Reliable and reproducible methods are needed to communicate radiologists' interpretation to the screening program or clinicians driving management decision. We performed an audit of a subset of dictated reports from the PANCAN study to assess for omissions. We developed an electronic synoptic reporting tool for radiologists embedded in a clinical documentation system software. The tool was then used for reporting as part of the Alberta Lung Cancer Screening Study and McGill University Health Centre Pilot Lung Cancer Screening Program. Fifty reports were audited for completeness. At least one omission was noted in 30 (70%) of reports, with a major omission (missing lobe, size, type of nodule in report or actionable incidental finding in recommendation section of report) in 24 (48%). Details of the reporting template and functionality such as automated nodule cancer risk assessment, Lung-RADS category assignment, auto-generated narrative type report as well as personalize participant results letter is provided. A description of the system's performance in its application in 2815 CT reports is then summarized. We found that narrative type radiologist reports for lung cancer screening CT examinations frequently lacked specific discrete data elements required for management. We demonstrate the successful implementation of a radiology synoptic reporting system for use in lung cancer screening, and the use of this information to drive program management and communications.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Interpretation of Low Dose CT scans and protocol driven management of findings is a key aspect of lung cancer screening program performance. Reliable and reproducible methods are needed to communicate radiologists' interpretation to the screening program or clinicians driving management decision.
METHODS
We performed an audit of a subset of dictated reports from the PANCAN study to assess for omissions. We developed an electronic synoptic reporting tool for radiologists embedded in a clinical documentation system software. The tool was then used for reporting as part of the Alberta Lung Cancer Screening Study and McGill University Health Centre Pilot Lung Cancer Screening Program.
RESULTS
Fifty reports were audited for completeness. At least one omission was noted in 30 (70%) of reports, with a major omission (missing lobe, size, type of nodule in report or actionable incidental finding in recommendation section of report) in 24 (48%). Details of the reporting template and functionality such as automated nodule cancer risk assessment, Lung-RADS category assignment, auto-generated narrative type report as well as personalize participant results letter is provided. A description of the system's performance in its application in 2815 CT reports is then summarized.
CONCLUSIONS
We found that narrative type radiologist reports for lung cancer screening CT examinations frequently lacked specific discrete data elements required for management. We demonstrate the successful implementation of a radiology synoptic reporting system for use in lung cancer screening, and the use of this information to drive program management and communications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35690733
doi: 10.1186/s12880-022-00837-y
pii: 10.1186/s12880-022-00837-y
pmc: PMC9188213
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
111Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Am Coll Radiol. 2015 Feb;12(2):143-50
pubmed: 25456025
Virchows Arch. 2016 Jun;468(6):639-49
pubmed: 27097810
Int J Cancer. 2020 Mar 15;146(6):1503-1513
pubmed: 31162856
Radiol Med. 2022 May;127(5):543-559
pubmed: 35306638
J Am Coll Radiol. 2019 Oct;16(10):1425-1432
pubmed: 31103442
Surg Endosc. 2022 May;36(5):3610-3618
pubmed: 34263379
Ann Oncol. 2019 Jul 1;30(7):1162-1169
pubmed: 30937431
Surg Endosc. 2018 Apr;32(4):1729-1739
pubmed: 28917006
J Am Coll Radiol. 2008 May;5(5):626-9
pubmed: 18442766
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365(5):395-409
pubmed: 21714641
J Digit Imaging. 2019 Dec;32(6):1044-1051
pubmed: 31289979
J Am Coll Radiol. 2010 Oct;7(10):754-73
pubmed: 20889105
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Nov;18(11):1523-1531
pubmed: 29055736
Insights Imaging. 2018 Feb;9(1):1-7
pubmed: 29460129
N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 5;369(10):910-9
pubmed: 24004118
J Am Coll Radiol. 2016 Feb;13(2 Suppl):R25-9
pubmed: 26846532
BMJ. 2014 May 27;348:g2253
pubmed: 24865600
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 6;382(6):503-513
pubmed: 31995683
BMJ Open. 2018 Oct 2;8(10):e018499
pubmed: 30282676
J Am Coll Radiol. 2021 Jul;18(7):937-946
pubmed: 33607066