2017
DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000009411
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Specialized second-opinion radiology review of PET/CT examinations for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma impacts patient care and management

Abstract: To identify discrepancies in fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) reports generated by general radiologists and subspecialized oncological radiologists for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and to assess if such discrepancies impact patient management.Two radiologists retrospectively reviewed 72 PET/CT scans of patients with DLBCL referred to our institutions between 2009 and 2011, and recorded the discrepancies between the outside and second-opinion … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…6,[13][14][15] We also found that only a subset of second opinions leading to meaningful treatment changes (n = 42) were due to meaningful diagnostic changes (n = 13). While many definitions of second opinion diagnostic change exist, [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] our findings are in the range of those from studies with similarly conservative definitions of "meaningful" change in both diagnosis and treatment. 3,8,9 The greater relative frequency of treatment change might be explained by the relative complexity and range of treatment options compared to the complexity of diagnostic evaluation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 51%
“…6,[13][14][15] We also found that only a subset of second opinions leading to meaningful treatment changes (n = 42) were due to meaningful diagnostic changes (n = 13). While many definitions of second opinion diagnostic change exist, [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] our findings are in the range of those from studies with similarly conservative definitions of "meaningful" change in both diagnosis and treatment. 3,8,9 The greater relative frequency of treatment change might be explained by the relative complexity and range of treatment options compared to the complexity of diagnostic evaluation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 51%
“…The interim and end-of-treatment positive, negative, and overall agreements were 73.7%, 92.0%, and 87.7%, and 76.3%, 95.0%, and 91.7%, respectively. 32 By contrast, Kluge et al 33 (42% agreement, k = 0.24), Sawan et al 34 (k = 0.082), and Ceriani et al 35 (k = 0.35-0.72) all reported poorer interobserver agreement for assigning individual D5PS to random scores. Kluge et al 33 reported that interobserver agreement improved when interpreters assigned a simple binary positive or negative result, such as reporting D5PS scores of 1, 2, or 3 as negative for recurrence and 4 or 5 as positive for disease or recurrence (86% agreement, k = 0.56).…”
Section: Using the Lugano Classification In Daily Practicementioning
confidence: 97%
“…Kluge et al 33 reported that interobserver agreement improved when interpreters assigned a simple binary positive or negative result, such as reporting D5PS scores of 1, 2, or 3 as negative for recurrence and 4 or 5 as positive for disease or recurrence (86% agreement, k = 0.56). Sawan et al, 34 reported improved interobserver agreement as well as accuracy when second-opinion reports were obtained by oncologic radiologists who had training and experience in evaluating these studies (k = 0.86 and radiology-pathology concordance = 78%). Ceriani et al, 35 reported improved interobserver agreement after training (k = 0.77-0.87).…”
Section: Using the Lugano Classification In Daily Practicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Having a timely second opinion can improve diagnostic yield, ultimately improving the quality of patient care. [27][28][29] Similarly, this technology has the potential to expand collaboration at the global level. VR technology has routinely demonstrated to push barriers to communication to expand learning opportunities and optimize knowledge exchange.…”
Section: Collaboration Among Radiologistsmentioning
confidence: 99%