Structured Reporting in Neuroradiology: Intracranial Tumors

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this pilot study was to assess the clinical feasibility, diagnostic yield, advantages, and disadvantages of structured reporting for routine MRI-reading in patients with primary diagnosis of intracranial tumors as compared to traditional neuroradiological free text reporting.MethodsA structured MRI reporting template was developed covering pathological, anatomical, and functional aspects in an itemized fashion. Retrospectively, 60 consecutive patients with first diagnosis of an intracranial tumor were selected from the radiology information system/PACS system. Structured reporting was performed by a senior neuroradiologist, blinded to clinical and radiological data. Reporting times were measured per patient. The diagnostic content was compared to free text reporting which was independently performed on the same MRI exams by two other neuroradiologists. The comparisons were categorized per item as: “congruent,” “partially congruent,” “incongruent,” or “not mentioned in free-style report.”ResultsTumor-related items: congruent findings were found for all items (17/17) with congruence rates ranging between 98 and 39% per item. Four items achieved congruence rates ≥90%, 5 items >80%, and 9 items ≥70%. Partially congruent findings were found for all items in up to 50% per item. Incongruent findings were present in 7/17 items in up to 5% per item. Free text reports did not mention 12 of 17 items (range 7–43% per item). Non-tumor-related items, including brain atrophy, microangiopathy, vascular pathologies, and various extracranial pathologies, which were not mentioned in free-text reports between 18 and 85% per item. Mean reporting time for structured reporting was 7:49 min (3:12–17:06 min).ConclusionFirst results showed that expert structured reporting ensured reliable detection of all relevant brain pathologies along with reproducible documentation of all predefined diagnostic items, which was not always the case for free text reporting. A mean reporting time of 8 min per patient seems clinically feasible.

What do we know about volumetric medical image interpretation?: a review of the basic science and medical image perception literatures

“…In addition, there is compelling evidence in other areas of radiology that using a more structured approach might generally help offset memory demands and improve performance. For example, relative to free-form dictation templates, structured templates improve dictation quality (Marcal et al, 2015; Marcovici & Taylor, 2014; Schwartz, Panicek, Berk, & Hricak, 2011), encourage adherence to best practices (Kahn Jr., Heilbrun, & Applegate, 2013), and improve diagnostic accuracy (Bink et al, 2018; Lin, Powell, & Kagetsu, 2014; Rosskopf et al, 2015; Wildman-Tobriner et al, 2017). Similarly, using a checklist with anatomical structures and frequently missed diagnoses improved diagnostic performance in a group of medical students (Kok, Abed, & Robben, 2017, though see Berbaum, Franken Jr., Caldwell, & Schwartz, 2006).…”

Current Status and Quality of Machine Learning-Based Radiomics Studies for Glioma Grading: A Systematic Review

“…Despite the momentum toward the molecular fingerprint, the glioma classification into LGG versus HGG or grade 1, grade 2, grade 3, and grade 4 is still commonly used in clinical practice. Also, glioma classification into low-grade and high-grade is still standard of care in the radiology reports [9][10][11].…”

A Quantitative Assessment of Pre-Operative MRI Reports in Glioma Patients: Report Metrics and IDH Prediction Ability

“…In our reports, we found the structured system resulted in nearly similar sentence count for all reports. Andrea et al (12). in 2018 compared the reporting with an expert designed tumor MRI report template with free-text reporting.…”