Affordable Access

Access to the full text

Structured reporting of CT or MRI for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: usefulness for clinical planning and interdisciplinary communication

Authors
  • Hong, Seung Baek1
  • Lee, Nam Kyung1
  • Kim, Suk1
  • Son, Il Wan1
  • Seo, Hyung Il2
  • Kim, Dong Uk2
  • Han, Sung Yong2
  • Kim, Tae Un3
  • 1 Pusan National University Hospital, and Pusan National University School of Medicine, 179 Gudeok-ro, Seo-gu, Busan, 49241, Korea , Busan (South Korea)
  • 2 Pusan National University Hospital, and Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea , Busan (South Korea)
  • 3 Pusan National University Yansan Hospital, and Pusan National University school of Medicine, Yangsan, Korea , Yangsan (South Korea)
Type
Published Article
Journal
Japanese Journal of Radiology
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Publication Date
Nov 11, 2020
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
349–356
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1007/s11604-020-01068-3
Source
Springer Nature
Keywords
License
Yellow

Abstract

PurposeTo compare the content and communication between the radiologist and the clinicians for treatment planning of structured reports (SRs) and narrative reports (NRs) for reporting CT/MRI findings in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.Materials and methodThis retrospective study included 54 patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma who underwent CT/MRI before ERCP or surgery. For all patients, we generated both NRs and SRs for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and compared the number of key features between NRs and SRs. In addition, three clinicians performed a questionnaire evaluation that included three questions regarding assessment of the sufficiency of information for surgical or procedural planning, the effort required for information extraction, and the report quality rated on a Likert scale.ResultsSRs included significantly more predefined key features (6.89 ± 0.31) than NRs (5.87 ± 0.70) (p < 0.001). SRs provided greater sufficiency of information for clinical planning than NRs (89.9% vs. 18.5% of the cases, respectively; p < 0.001). Extraction of information was easier from SRs than NRs (94.4% vs. 9.3%, respectively) (p < 0.001). SRs received a higher overall report quality rating (5.96 ± 0.19) than NRs (4.31 ± 0.77) (p < 0.001).ConclusionsSRs of CT/MRI findings for hilar cholangiocarcinoma can reveal more predefined key features, provide more sufficiency of information, and yield higher satisfaction levels, in comparison with NRs.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times