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

Response Evaluation Criteria in Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Cancers: Which to Use and How to Measure

As the management of gastrointestinal malignancy has evolved, tumor response assessment has expanded from size-based assessments to those that include tumor enhancement, in addition to functional data such as those derived from PET and diffusion-weighted imaging. Accurate interpretation of tumor response therefore requires knowledge of imaging modalities used in gastrointestinal malignancy, anticancer therapies, and tumor biology. Targeted therapies such as immunotherapy pose additional considerations due to unique imaging response patterns and drug toxicity; as a consequence, immunotherapy response criteria have been developed. Some gastrointestinal malignancies require assessment with tumor-specific criteria when assessing response, often to guide clinical management (such as watchful waiting in rectal cancer or suitability for surgery in pancreatic cancer). Moreover, anatomic measurements can underestimate therapeutic response when applied to molecular-targeted therapies or locoregional therapies in hypervascular malignancies such as hepatocellular carcinoma. In these cases, responding tumors may exhibit morphologic changes including cystic degeneration, necrosis, and hemorrhage, often without significant reduction in size. Awareness of pitfalls when interpreting gastrointestinal tumor response is required to correctly interpret response assessment imaging and guide appropriate oncologic management. Data-driven image analyses such as radiomics have been investigated in a variety of gastrointestinal tumors, such as identifying those more likely to respond to therapy or recur, with the aim of delivering precision medicine. Multimedia-enhanced radiology reports can facilitate communication of gastrointestinal tumor response by automatically embedding response categories, key data, and representative images. ©RSNA, 2024 Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Talking Points: Enhancing Communication Between Radiologists and Patients

Radiologists communicate along multiple pathways, using written, verbal, and non-verbal means. Radiology trainees must gain skills in all forms of communication, with attention to developing effective professional communication in all forms. This manuscript reviews evidence-based strategies for enhancing effective communication between radiologists and patients through direct communication, written means and enhanced reporting. We highlight patient-centered communication efforts, available evidence, and opportunities to engage learners and enhance training and simulation efforts that improve communication with patients at all levels of clinical care.

Augmented Radiologist Workflow Improves Report Value and Saves Time: A Potential Model for Implementation of Artificial Intelligence

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Our primary aim was to improve radiology reports by increasing concordance of target lesion measurements with oncology records using radiology preprocessors (RP). Faster notification of incidental actionable findings to referring clinicians and clinical radiologist exam interpretation time savings with RPs quantifying tumor burden were also assessed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective quality improvement initiative, RPs annotated lesions before radiologist interpretation of CT exams. Clinical radiologists then hyperlinked approved measurements into interactive reports during interpretations. RPs evaluated concordance with our tumor measurement radiologist, the determinant of tumor burden. Actionable finding detection and notification times were also deduced. Clinical radiologist interpretation times were calculated from established average CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis interpretation times.

RESULTS

RPs assessed 1287 body CT exams with 812 follow-up CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis studies; 95 (11.7%) of which had 241 verified target lesions. There was improved concordance (67.8% vs. 22.5%) of target lesion measurements. RPs detected 93.1% incidental actionable findings with faster clinician notification by a median time of 1 hour (range: 15 minutes-16 hours). Radiologist exam interpretation times decreased by 37%.

CONCLUSIONS

This workflow resulted in three-fold improved target lesion measurement concordance with oncology records, earlier detection and faster notification of incidental actionable findings to referring clinicians, and decreased exam interpretation times for clinical radiologists. These findings demonstrate potential roles for automation (such as AI) to improve report value, worklist prioritization, and patient care.

Discrepancies of assessments in a RECIST 1.1 phase II clinical trial - association between adjudication rate and variability in images and tumors selection

Background

In imaging-based clinical trials, it is common practice to perform double reads for each image, discrepant interpretations can result from these two different evaluations. In this study we analyzed discrepancies that occurred between local investigators (LI) and blinded independent central review (BICR) by comparing reader-selected imaging scans and lesions. Our goal was to identify the causes of discrepant declarations of progressive disease (PD) between LI and BICR in a clinical trial.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed imaging data from a RECIST 1.1-based, multi-sites, phase II clinical trial of 179 patients with adult small cell lung cancer, treated with Cabazitaxel compared to Topotecan. Any discrepancies in the determination of PD between LI and BICR readers were reviewed by a third-party adjudicator. For each imaging time point and reader, we recorded the selected target lesions, non-target lesions, and new lesions. Odds ratios were calculated to measure the association between discrepant declarations of PD and the differences in reviewed imaging scans (e.g. same imaging modality but with different reconstruction parameters) and selected lesions. Reasons for discrepancies were analyzed.

Results

The average number of target lesions found by LI and BICR was respectively 2.9 and 3.4 per patient (p < 0.05), 18.4% of these target lesions were actually non-measurable. LI and BICR performed their evaluations based on different baseline imaging scans for 59% of the patients, they selected at least one different target lesion in 85% of patients. A total of 36.7% of patients required adjudication. Reasons of adjudication included differences in 1) reporting new lesions (53.7%), 2) the measured change of the tumor burden (18.5%), and 3) the progression of non-target lesions (11.2%). The rate of discrepancy was not associated with the selection of non-measurable target lesions or with the readers’ assessment of different images. Paradoxically, more discrepancies occurred when LI and BICR selected exactly the same target lesions at baseline compared to when readers selected not exactly the same lesions.

Conclusions

For a large proportion of evaluations, LI and BICR did not select the same imaging scans and target lesions but with a limited impact on the rate of discrepancy. The majority of discrepancies were explained by the difference in detecting new lesions.

Trial Registration

ARD12166 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01500720).

Multimedia-enhanced Radiology Reports: Concept, Components, and Challenges

Multimedia-enhanced radiology report (MERR) development is defined and described from an informatics perspective, in which the MERR is seen as a superior information-communicating entity. Recent technical advances, such as the hyperlinking of report text directly to annotated images, improve MERR information content and accessibility compared with text-only reports. The MERR is analyzed by its components, which include hypertext, tables, graphs, embedded images, and their interconnections. The authors highlight the advantages of each component for improving the radiologist's communication of report content information and the user's ability to extract information. Requirements for MERR implementation (eg, integration of picture archiving and communication systems, radiology information systems, and electronic medical record systems) and the authors' initial experiences and challenges in MERR implementation at the National Institutes of Health are reviewed. The transition to MERRs has provided advantages over use of traditional text-only radiology reports because of the capacity to include hyperlinked report text that directs clinicians to image annotations, images, tables, and graphs. A framework is provided for thinking about the MERR from the user's perspective. Additional applications of emerging technologies (eg, artificial intelligence and machine learning) are described in the crafting of what the authors believe is the radiology report of the future. ^©RSNA, 2018.

DeepLesion: automated mining of large-scale lesion annotations and universal lesion detection with deep learning

Extracting, harvesting, and building large-scale annotated radiological image datasets is a greatly important yet challenging problem. Meanwhile, vast amounts of clinical annotations have been collected and stored in hospitals' picture archiving and communication systems (PACS). These types of annotations, also known as bookmarks in PACS, are usually marked by radiologists during their daily workflow to highlight significant image findings that may serve as reference for later studies. We propose to mine and harvest these abundant retrospective medical data to build a large-scale lesion image dataset. Our process is scalable and requires minimum manual annotation effort. We mine bookmarks in our institute to develop DeepLesion, a dataset with 32,735 lesions in 32,120 CT slices from 10,594 studies of 4,427 unique patients. There are a variety of lesion types in this dataset, such as lung nodules, liver tumors, enlarged lymph nodes, and so on. It has the potential to be used in various medical image applications. Using DeepLesion, we train a universal lesion detector that can find all types of lesions with one unified framework. In this challenging task, the proposed lesion detector achieves a sensitivity of 81.1% with five false positives per image.

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.

Maximizing Value Through Innovations in Radiologist-Driven Communications in Breast Imaging

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this article are to provide an overview of current and emerging practices in radiologist communications with both referring physicians and patients across the breast cancer care continuum; to highlight areas in which radiologist-driven communications can improve value in breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment; and describe how the integrative reporting and consultative practices of breast imagers can serve as models of higher-value patient-centered care in other radiology subspecialties.

CONCLUSION

The traditional radiology report will eventually no longer be viewed as the sole consultation by radiologists but instead act as a starting point for more detailed communications between radiologists and both patients and physicians. The value-creating practices of breast imagers can be used as a road map for similar practices across other radiologic specialties, similar to the use of BI-RADS as a road map for structured breast imaging reporting.