4.7 Article

Do MRI Reports Contain Adequate Preoperative Staging Information for End Users to Make Appropriate Treatment Decisions for Rectal Cancer?

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 1148-1155

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2738-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS)
  2. Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (CSCRS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was designed to elicit end-user opinions regarding the importance and diagnostic accuracy of MRI for T-category, threatened or involved circumferential margin (CRMi), and lymph node involvement (LNi) for preoperative staging of rectal cancer and to determine completeness of MRI reports for these elements on a population based level. The first part of this study was a mailed survey of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists to elicit their opinions regarding the importance and diagnostic accuracy of T-category, CRMi, and LNi on MRI. The second part of the study was an audit of MRI reports issued for pre-operative staging of rectal cancer to assess the completeness of these reports for T-category, CRMi, and LNi. Although T-category, CRMi, and LNi were considered essential by 97, 94, and 77 % of respondents, respectively, the MRI report audit showed that only 40 % of MRI reports captured all of these elements. The majority of end users reported moderate diagnostic accuracy on MRI for T-category and CRMi and low diagnostic accuracy for LNi (52.3, 43, and 48.5 % respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that specialty was the only independent predictor of correct reporting of the diagnostic accuracy for each of the MRI elements. While end users consider T-category, CRMi and LNi essential for preoperative staging of rectal cancer, less than 40 % of MRI reports captured all of these elements. Therefore, strategies to improve communication between radiologists and end users are critical to improve the overall quality of care for rectal cancer patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据