Structured reports of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging in primary endometrial cancer: Potential benefits for clinical decision-making

• Published in: PloS one 2019-03, Vol.14 (3), p.e0213928-e0213928
• Main Authors: Liu, Yi, Feng, Zonghao, Qin, Shengtang, Yang, Jiejin, Han, Chao, Wang, Xiaoying
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Access to information; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Analysis; Biology and Life Sciences; Cancer; Cancer research; Cancer staging; Chemotherapy; Clinical Decision-Making; Communication; Decision making; Diagnosis; Diagnostic imaging; Efficiency; End users; Endometrial cancer; Endometrial Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Endometrium; Female; Gynecology; Hospitals; Humans; Magnetic resonance; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Medical diagnosis; Medical imaging; Medicine and Health Sciences; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; NMR; Nuclear magnetic resonance; Obstetrics; Patients; Pelvis - diagnostic imaging; People and Places; Physicians; Practice; Quality; Radiologists; Radiology; Rank tests; Research and Analysis Methods; Research Report - standards; Resonance; Retrospective Studies; Social Sciences; Standardization; Statistical analysis; Studies; Surveys and Questionnaires; Uterine cancer; Uterus
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213928

Although evidence is increasing that the implementation of structured reports (SRs) may increase the standardization of reports and improve communication between radiologists and end-users, it is unclear whether these alternative formats of Chinese radiological narratives are appealing or even acceptable to radiologists and clinicians. To compare the effect of SRs and non-structured reports (NSRs) of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with primary endometrial cancer on referring gynecologists' satisfaction, further decision-making and efficiency. Forty-one patients with histologically proven endometrial cancer were included in this study. SRs and NSRs for local MRI staging of endometrial cancer were generated for all subjects. NSRs were generated during clinical routine practice. The same 41 uterine studies were reviewed by the same radiologist using structured reporting system after a period of time. Two radiologists compared SRs on the number of key features related to cancer staging and writing efficiency with NSRs together. Five gynecologists filled in questionnaires regarding satisfaction with content, clinical usefulness, report' quality and time consumption. Statistical analysis included Kendall's W test, paired-sample t test and Wilcoxon signed rank test. There was no significant difference in the number of key features in NSRs comparison to SRs (p = 0.055). A statistically significant difference was observed in the satisfaction with linguistic quality for NSRs versus SRs by three gynaecologists (reader 1: 4.02 vs. 4.63, p = 0.002; reader 3: 3.86 vs. 4.02, p = 0.035; reader 4: 4.05 vs. 4.27, p = 0.024). The radiologist spent less time finishing SRs compared with NSRs (727.22 ± 38.42 sec vs. 616.44 ± 60.00 sec, p = 0.037). The application of SRs significantly increased the value of female pelvic MRI reports by increasing radiologists' work efficiency and gynaecologists' satisfaction.