Improved efficiency in clinical workflow of reporting measured oncology lesions via PACS-integrated lesion tracking tool

A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

To present the results of a survey on the assessment of treatment response with imaging in oncologic patient, in routine clinical practice. The survey was promoted by the European Society of Oncologic Imaging to gather information for the development of reporting models and recommendations.

METHODS

The survey was launched on the European Society of Oncologic Imaging website and was available for 3 weeks. It consisted of 5 sections, including 24 questions related to the following topics: demographic and professional information, methods for lesion measurement, how to deal with diminutive lesions, how to report baseline and follow-up examinations, which previous studies should be used for comparison, and role of RECIST 1.1 criteria in the daily clinical practice.

RESULTS

A total of 286 responses were received. Most responders followed the RECIST 1.1 recommendations for the measurement of target lesions and lymph nodes and for the assessment of tumor response. To assess response, 48.6% used previous and/or best response study in addition to baseline, 25.2% included the evaluation of all main time points, and 35% used as the reference only the previous study. A considerable number of responders used RECIST 1.1 criteria in daily clinical practice (41.6%) or thought that they should be always applied (60.8%).

CONCLUSION

Since standardized criteria are mainly a prerogative of clinical trials, in daily routine, reporting strategies are left to radiologists and oncologists, which may issue local and diversified recommendations. The survey emphasizes the need for more generally applicable rules for response assessment in clinical practice.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Compared to clinical trials which use specific criteria to evaluate response to oncological treatments, the free narrative report usually adopted in daily clinical practice may lack clarity and useful information, and therefore, more structured approaches are needed.

KEY POINTS

· Most radiologists consider standardized reporting strategies essential for an objective assessment of tumor response in clinical practice. · Radiologists increasingly rely on RECIST 1.1 in their daily clinical practice. · Treatment response evaluation should require a complete analysis of all imaging time points and not only of the last.

Efficient Collaboration Between Radiologists Using the PACS-Integrated Refer Function to Reduce Communication Times

The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of a picture archiving and communication systems (PACS)-integrated refer function for improving collaboration between radiologists and radiographers during daily reading sessions. Retrospective analysis was conducted on refers sent by radiologists using a PACS-integrated refer system from March 2020 to December 2021. Refers were categorized according to receiver: radiologists in the same division (intra-division), radiologists in a different division (inter-division), and radiographers. The proportions of answered refers, content of refers, and timing of refer posts were evaluated. Additionally, time intervals in minutes from initial refer post to refer response were assessed to assess the efficiency of the refer system and compared according to receivers using the Mann-Whitney U test. Among a total of 691 refers posted by radiologists, 579 (83.8%) were answered directly using the refer function in PACS. Of the answered refers, 346 refers (59.8%) were made between radiologists, and 173 (50%) were intra-division refers. About the content of refers, about 82.6% of radiologists' refers were about imaging interpretation consultation, and about 98.9% of refers from radiologists to radiographers were for image quality control. The median time interval until refer response was 9 min, and this response time did not differ between intra-division and inter-division refers (p = 0.998). Of the refers that got responses, 74.3% (257/346) were sent among radiologists before official reports were made, and the median time until refer response was 9-10 min. The proportion of refers answered by radiographers was 85.7% (233/272). The median time interval until refer response by radiographers was 87 min for all refers, and 63% were made within 6 h. Therefore, the PACS-integrated refer function can facilitate communication between radiologists for image interpretation and quality control.

[Interdisciplinary case discussions]

BACKGROUND

Interdisciplinary case discussions, especially tumor conferences, represent a large part of the clinical radiologist's daily work. Radiology plays a key role in tumor conferences, since imaging findings have a direct influence on therapy decisions.

METHODS AND OBJECTIVES

This article discusses the requirements for the radiologist in preparing and conducting tumor conferences. Furthermore, the general conditions and forms of implementation of tumor conferences will be highlighted. Information technology (IT) tools for process automation and systems for assessing the course of tumor diseases will be presented.

RESULTS

Detailed preparation of tumor conferences and clear communication of findings is essential. The radiological expertise in tumor conferences often leads to changes or adjustments of initially planned therapies. In addition to traditional face-to-face meetings, hybrid solutions have become established for tumor conferences in which the core team is on site and other participants (external referring physicians, internal participants outside the core team) are connected via video conference. Various systems have been established for assessing the course of tumor diseases. Due to its broad applicability, RECIST 1.1. is the most widely used. IT tools enable previously marked lesions to be displayed over time in a matrix view (lesion tracking). Artificial intelligence (AI) can also be used to automatically detect lesions and assess their volumes.

CONCLUSION

Preparing and conducting tumor conferences is time-consuming for radiologists. IT tools can automate and thus facilitate the processes. Hybrid solutions combining face-to-face meetings and video conferences make it easier for external referring physicians to present their patients in tumor conferences.

Multispecialty Enterprise Imaging Workgroup Consensus on Interactive Multimedia Reporting Current State and Road to the Future: HIMSS-SIIM Collaborative White Paper

Diagnostic and evidential static image, video clip, and sound multimedia are captured during routine clinical care in cardiology, dermatology, ophthalmology, pathology, physiatry, radiation oncology, radiology, endoscopic procedural specialties, and other medical disciplines. Providers typically describe the multimedia findings in contemporaneous electronic health record clinical notes or associate a textual interpretative report. Visual communication aids commonly used to connect, synthesize, and supplement multimedia and descriptive text outside medicine remain technically challenging to integrate into patient care. Such beneficial interactive elements may include hyperlinks between text, multimedia elements, alphanumeric and geometric annotations, tables, graphs, timelines, diagrams, anatomic maps, and hyperlinks to external educational references that patients or provider consumers may find valuable. This HIMSS-SIIM Enterprise Imaging Community workgroup white paper outlines the current and desired clinical future state of interactive multimedia reporting (IMR). The workgroup adopted a consensus definition of IMR as “interactive medical documentation that combines clinical images, videos, sound, imaging metadata, and/or image annotations with text, typographic emphases, tables, graphs, event timelines, anatomic maps, hyperlinks, and/or educational resources to optimize communication between medical professionals, and between medical professionals and their patients.” This white paper also serves as a precursor for future efforts toward solving technical issues impeding routine interactive multimedia report creation and ingestion into electronic health records.

Automated Tracking of Follow-Up Imaging Recommendations

OBJECTIVE. Radiology reports often contain follow-up imaging recommendations. Failure to comply with these recommendations in a timely manner can lead to poor patient outcomes, complications, and legal liability. As such, the primary objective of this research was to determine adherence rates to follow-up recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Radiology-related examination data, including report text, for examinations performed between June 1, 2015, and July 31, 2017, were extracted from the radiology departments at the University of Washington (UW) and Lahey Hospital and Medical Center (LHMC). The UW dataset contained 923,885 examinations, and the LHMC dataset contained 763,059 examinations. A 1-year period was used for detection of imaging recommendations and up to 14-months for the follow-up examination to be performed. RESULTS. On the basis of an algorithm with 97.9% detection accuracy, the follow-up imaging recommendation rate was 11.4% at UW and 20.9% at LHMC. Excluding mammography examinations, the overall follow-up imaging adherence rate was 51.9% at UW (range, 44.4% for nuclear medicine to 63.0% for MRI) and 52.0% at LHMC (range, 30.1% for fluoroscopy to 63.2% for ultrasound) using a matcher algorithm with 76.5% accuracy. CONCLUSION. This study suggests that follow-up imaging adherence rates vary by modality and between sites. Adherence rates can be influenced by various legitimate factors. Having the capability to identify patients who can benefit from patient engagement initiatives is important to improve overall adherence rates. Monitoring of follow-up adherence rates over time and critical evaluation of variation in recommendation patterns across the practice can inform measures to standardize and help mitigate risk.

Limitations in and Solutions for Improving the Functionality of Picture Archiving and Communication System: an Exploratory Study of PACS Professionals' Perspectives

Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) technology is evolving leading to improvements in the PACS functionality. However, the needs and expectations of PACS users are increasing to cope with the rising demands for improving the workflow and enhancing efficiency in healthcare. The aim was to study the limitations in the current generation of PACS and solutions for improving PACS functionality. This was a longitudinal online observational study of the perspectives of PACS professionals accessed through four online discussion groups on PACS using the LinkedIn network. In this exploratory study, the methodology involved a thematic analysis of qualitative data comprising 250 online posts/comments made by 124 unique PACS professionals collected between January 2014 and December 2015. Participants were mostly male (n = 119, 96%) from the North America (n = 88, 71%). Key themes on limitations in the current generation of PACS were image transmission problems, network and hardware issues, difficulties in changing specific settings, issues in hardcoded Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine attributes, and problems in implementing open source PACS. Main themes on solutions for improving PACS functionality were the integration of multisite PACS, multimedia for PACS, web-based PACS, medical image viewer, open source PACS, PACS on mobile phones, vendor neutral archives for PACS, speech recognition and integration in PACS, PACS backup and recovery, and connecting PACS with other hospital systems. Despite ongoing technological developments, the current generation of PACS has limitations that affect PACS functionality leading to unmet needs and requirements of PACS users, which could impact workflow and efficiency in healthcare.

ENABLE (Exportable Notation and Bookmark List Engine): an Interface to Manage Tumor Measurement Data from PACS to Cancer Databases

Oncologists evaluate therapeutic response in cancer trials based on tumor quantification following selected "target" lesions over time. At our cancer center, a majority of oncologists use Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 quantifying tumor progression based on lesion measurements on imaging. Currently, our oncologists handwrite tumor measurements, followed by multiple manual data transfers; however, our Picture Archiving Communication System (PACS) (Carestream Health, Rochester, NY) has the ability to export tumor measurements, making it possible to manage tumor metadata digitally. We developed an interface, "Exportable Notation and Bookmark List Engine" (ENABLE), which produces prepopulated RECIST v1.1 worksheets and compiles cohort data and data models from PACS measurement data, thus eliminating handwriting and manual data transcription. We compared RECIST v1.1 data from eight patients (16 computed tomography exams) enrolled in an IRB-approved therapeutic trial with ENABLE outputs: 10 data fields with a total of 194 data points. All data in ENABLE's output matched with the existing data. Seven staff were taught how to use the interface with a 5-min explanatory instructional video. All were able to use ENABLE successfully without additional guidance. We additionally assessed 42 metastatic genitourinary cancer patients with available RECIST data within PACS to produce a best response waterfall plot. ENABLE manages tumor measurements and associated metadata exported from PACS, producing forms and data models compatible with cancer databases, obviating handwriting and the manual re-entry of data. Automation should reduce transcription errors and improve efficiency and the auditing process.

Resources Required for Semi-Automatic Volumetric Measurements in Metastatic Chordoma: Is Potentially Improved Tumor Burden Assessment Worth the Time Burden?

The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) is the current standard for assessing therapy response in patients with malignant solid tumors; however, volumetric assessments are thought to be more representative of actual tumor size and hence superior in predicting patient outcomes. We segmented all primary and metastatic lesions in 21 chordoma patients for comparison to RECIST. Primary tumors were segmented on MR and validated by a neuroradiologist. Metastatic lesions were segmented on CT and validated by a general radiologist. We estimated times for a research assistant to segment all primary and metastatic chordoma lesions using semi-automated volumetric segmentation tools available within our PACS (v12.0, Carestream, Rochester, NY), as well as time required for radiologists to validate the segmentations. We also report success rates of semi-automatic segmentation in metastatic lesions on CT and time required to export data. Furthermore, we discuss the feasibility of volumetric segmentation workflow in research and clinical settings. The research assistant spent approximately 65 h segmenting 435 lesions in 21 patients. This resulted in 1349 total segmentations (average 2.89 min per lesion) and over 13,000 data points. Combined time for the neuroradiologist and general radiologist to validate segmentations was 45.7 min per patient. Exportation time for all patients totaled only 6 h, providing time-saving opportunities for data managers and oncologists. Perhaps cost-neutral resource reallocation can help acquire volumes paralleling our example workflow. Our results will provide researchers with benchmark resources required for volumetric assessments within PACS and help prepare institutions for future volumetric assessment criteria.

Structured Reporting in Radiology

Radiology reports are vital for patient care as referring physicians depend upon them for deciding appropriate patient management. Traditional narrative reports are associated with excessive variability in the language, length, and style, which can minimize report clarity and make it difficult for referring clinicians to identify key information needed for patient care. Structured reporting has been advocated as a potential solution for improving the quality of radiology reports. The Association of University Radiologists-Radiology Research Alliance Structured Reporting Task Force convened to explore the current and future role of structured reporting in radiology and summarized its finding in this article. We review the advantages and disadvantages of structured radiology reports and discuss the current prevailing sentiments among radiologists regarding structured reports. We also discuss the obstacles to the use of structured reports and highlight ways to overcome some of those challenges. We also discuss the future directions in radiology reporting in the era of personalized medicine.

Radiology Reports With Hyperlinks Improve Target Lesion Selection and Measurement Concordance in Cancer Trials

OBJECTIVE

Radiology reports often lack the measurements of target lesions that are needed for oncology clinical trials. When available, the measurements in the radiology reports often do not match those in the records used to calculate therapeutic response. This study assessed the clinical value of hyperlinked tumor measurements in multimedia-enhanced radiology reports in the PACS and the inclusion of a radiologist assistant in the process of assessing tumor burden.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We assessed 489 target lesions in 232 CT examinations of 71 patients with metastatic genitourinary cancer enrolled in two therapeutic trials. We analyzed target lesion selection and measurement concordance between oncology records (used to calculate therapeutic response) and two types of radiology reports in the PACS: multimedia-enhanced radiology reports and text-only reports. For statistical tests, we used the Wilcoxon signed rank, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Fisher method to combine p values from the paired and unpaired results. The Fisher exact test was used to compare overall measurement concordance.

RESULTS

Concordance on target lesion selection was greater for multimedia-enhanced radiology reports (78%) than the text-only reports (52%) (p = 0.0050). There was also improved overall measurement concordance with the multimedia-enhanced radiology reports (68%) compared with the text-only reports (38%) (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with text-only reports, hyperlinked multimedia-enhanced radiology reports improved concordance of target lesion selection and measurement with the measurements used to calculate therapeutic response.

Users' Perspectives on a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS): An In-Depth Study in a Teaching Hospital in Kuwait

Background

Picture archiving and communication system (PACS) is a well-known imaging informatics application in health care organizations, specifically designed for the radiology department. Health care providers have exhibited willingness toward evaluating PACS in hospitals to ascertain the critical success and failure of the technology, considering that evaluation is a basic requirement.

Objective

This study aimed at evaluating the success of a PACS in a regional teaching hospital of Kuwait, from users’ perspectives, using information systems success criteria.

Methods

An in-depth study was conducted by using quantitative and qualitative methods. This mixed-method study was based on: (1) questionnaires, distributed to all radiologists and technologists and (2) interviews, conducted with PACS administrators.

Results

In all, 60 questionnaires were received from the respondents. These included 39 radiologists (75% response rate) and 21 technologists (62% response rate), with the results showing almost three-quarters (74%, 44 of 59) of the respondents rating PACS positively and as user friendly. This study’s findings revealed that the demographic data, including computer experience, was an insignificant factor, having no influence on the users’ responses. The findings were further substantiated by the administrators’ interview responses, which supported the benefits of PACS, indicating the need for developing a unified policy aimed at streamlining and improving the departmental workflow.

Conclusions

The PACS had a positive and productive impact on the radiologists’ and technologists’ work performance. They were endeavoring to resolve current problems while keeping abreast of advances in PACS technology, including teleradiology and mobile image viewer, which is steadily increasing in usage in the Kuwaiti health system.