Clinical importance of second-opinion interpretations by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center: magnetic resonance imaging for endometrial cancer staging
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Radiologia Brasileira (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-39842018000100026 |
Resumo: | Abstract Objective: To determine whether there are substantive differences between the initial interpretations of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans acquired at outside facilities and the second-opinion interpretations of radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center, among patients referred for endometrial cancer staging. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, comparative analysis of 153 initial and second-opinion MRI reports for endometrial cancer staging officially submitted for review by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology. For each case, the relationship between the initial and second-opinion reports, regarding the suggested diagnosis and the clinically relevant MRI findings reported, was categorized as "agreement" or "disagreement". Histopathology was used in order to establish the definitive diagnosis. Results: Disagreement was found in 58 (37.9%) of the 153 cases. Second-opinion interpretations reported findings that affected the preoperative cancer staging and could have led to a change in treatment in 38 cases (24.8%); that did not affect the preoperative staging but provided information that was more accurate in 8 (5.2%); and that suggested a new cancer diagnosis in 12 (7.8%). In 37 cases (24.2%), there was a potential for changes in patient care. Among the 58 cases of disagreement, a definitive (histopathological) diagnosis was made in 41 (70.7%). In 31 (75.6%) of those 41 cases, the second-opinion report was more accurate than was the initial report. Conclusion: Discordant interpretations of MRI examinations, which can have a substantial effect on the clinical management of patients, appear to be common. |
id |
CBR-1_badd84d28209dcb000fa4e9d5b6f2b53 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S0100-39842018000100026 |
network_acronym_str |
CBR-1 |
network_name_str |
Radiologia Brasileira (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Clinical importance of second-opinion interpretations by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center: magnetic resonance imaging for endometrial cancer stagingEndometrial neoplasm/diagnostic imagingReferral and consultationMagnetic resonance imagingDiagnostic imagingTertiary care centersAbstract Objective: To determine whether there are substantive differences between the initial interpretations of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans acquired at outside facilities and the second-opinion interpretations of radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center, among patients referred for endometrial cancer staging. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, comparative analysis of 153 initial and second-opinion MRI reports for endometrial cancer staging officially submitted for review by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology. For each case, the relationship between the initial and second-opinion reports, regarding the suggested diagnosis and the clinically relevant MRI findings reported, was categorized as "agreement" or "disagreement". Histopathology was used in order to establish the definitive diagnosis. Results: Disagreement was found in 58 (37.9%) of the 153 cases. Second-opinion interpretations reported findings that affected the preoperative cancer staging and could have led to a change in treatment in 38 cases (24.8%); that did not affect the preoperative staging but provided information that was more accurate in 8 (5.2%); and that suggested a new cancer diagnosis in 12 (7.8%). In 37 cases (24.2%), there was a potential for changes in patient care. Among the 58 cases of disagreement, a definitive (histopathological) diagnosis was made in 41 (70.7%). In 31 (75.6%) of those 41 cases, the second-opinion report was more accurate than was the initial report. Conclusion: Discordant interpretations of MRI examinations, which can have a substantial effect on the clinical management of patients, appear to be common.Publicação do Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem2018-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-39842018000100026Radiologia Brasileira v.51 n.1 2018reponame:Radiologia Brasileira (Online)instname:Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR)instacron:CBR10.1590/0100-3984.2016.0171info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAlves,InêsCunha,Teresa Margaridaeng2018-03-12T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0100-39842018000100026Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/rb/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpradiologiabrasileira@cbr.org.br1678-70990100-3984opendoar:2018-03-12T00:00Radiologia Brasileira (Online) - Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Clinical importance of second-opinion interpretations by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center: magnetic resonance imaging for endometrial cancer staging |
title |
Clinical importance of second-opinion interpretations by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center: magnetic resonance imaging for endometrial cancer staging |
spellingShingle |
Clinical importance of second-opinion interpretations by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center: magnetic resonance imaging for endometrial cancer staging Alves,Inês Endometrial neoplasm/diagnostic imaging Referral and consultation Magnetic resonance imaging Diagnostic imaging Tertiary care centers |
title_short |
Clinical importance of second-opinion interpretations by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center: magnetic resonance imaging for endometrial cancer staging |
title_full |
Clinical importance of second-opinion interpretations by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center: magnetic resonance imaging for endometrial cancer staging |
title_fullStr |
Clinical importance of second-opinion interpretations by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center: magnetic resonance imaging for endometrial cancer staging |
title_full_unstemmed |
Clinical importance of second-opinion interpretations by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center: magnetic resonance imaging for endometrial cancer staging |
title_sort |
Clinical importance of second-opinion interpretations by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center: magnetic resonance imaging for endometrial cancer staging |
author |
Alves,Inês |
author_facet |
Alves,Inês Cunha,Teresa Margarida |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Cunha,Teresa Margarida |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Alves,Inês Cunha,Teresa Margarida |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Endometrial neoplasm/diagnostic imaging Referral and consultation Magnetic resonance imaging Diagnostic imaging Tertiary care centers |
topic |
Endometrial neoplasm/diagnostic imaging Referral and consultation Magnetic resonance imaging Diagnostic imaging Tertiary care centers |
description |
Abstract Objective: To determine whether there are substantive differences between the initial interpretations of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans acquired at outside facilities and the second-opinion interpretations of radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center, among patients referred for endometrial cancer staging. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, comparative analysis of 153 initial and second-opinion MRI reports for endometrial cancer staging officially submitted for review by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology. For each case, the relationship between the initial and second-opinion reports, regarding the suggested diagnosis and the clinically relevant MRI findings reported, was categorized as "agreement" or "disagreement". Histopathology was used in order to establish the definitive diagnosis. Results: Disagreement was found in 58 (37.9%) of the 153 cases. Second-opinion interpretations reported findings that affected the preoperative cancer staging and could have led to a change in treatment in 38 cases (24.8%); that did not affect the preoperative staging but provided information that was more accurate in 8 (5.2%); and that suggested a new cancer diagnosis in 12 (7.8%). In 37 cases (24.2%), there was a potential for changes in patient care. Among the 58 cases of disagreement, a definitive (histopathological) diagnosis was made in 41 (70.7%). In 31 (75.6%) of those 41 cases, the second-opinion report was more accurate than was the initial report. Conclusion: Discordant interpretations of MRI examinations, which can have a substantial effect on the clinical management of patients, appear to be common. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-02-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-39842018000100026 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-39842018000100026 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/0100-3984.2016.0171 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Publicação do Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Publicação do Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Radiologia Brasileira v.51 n.1 2018 reponame:Radiologia Brasileira (Online) instname:Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR) instacron:CBR |
instname_str |
Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR) |
instacron_str |
CBR |
institution |
CBR |
reponame_str |
Radiologia Brasileira (Online) |
collection |
Radiologia Brasileira (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Radiologia Brasileira (Online) - Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
radiologiabrasileira@cbr.org.br |
_version_ |
1754208939691474944 |