Back to Search Start Over

Multi-institutional analysis of CT and MRI reports evaluating indeterminate renal masses: comparison to a national survey investigating desired report elements.

Authors :
Hu EM
Zhang A
Silverman SG
Pedrosa I
Wang ZJ
Smith AD
Chandarana H
Doshi A
Shinagare AB
Remer EM
Kaffenberger SD
Miller DC
Davenport MS
Source :
Abdominal radiology (New York) [Abdom Radiol (NY)] 2018 Dec; Vol. 43 (12), pp. 3493-3502.
Publication Year :
2018

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the need for a standardized renal mass reporting template by analyzing reports of indeterminate renal masses and comparing their contents to stated preferences of radiologists and urologists.<br />Methods: The host IRB waived regulatory oversight for this multi-institutional HIPAA-compliant quality improvement effort. CT and MRI reports created to characterize an indeterminate renal mass were analyzed from 6 community (median: 17 reports/site) and 6 academic (median: 23 reports/site) United States practices. Report contents were compared to a published national survey of stated preferences by academic radiologists and urologists from 9 institutions. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were calculated.<br />Results: Of 319 reports, 85% (271; 192 CT, 79 MRI) reported a possibly malignant mass (236 solid, 35 cystic). Some essential elements were commonly described: size (99% [269/271]), mass type (solid vs. cystic; 99% [268/271]), enhancement (presence vs. absence; 92% [248/271]). Other essential elements had incomplete penetrance: the presence or absence of fat in solid masses (14% [34/236]), size comparisons when available (79% [111/140]), Bosniak classification for cystic masses (54% [19/35]). Preferred but non-essential elements generally were described in less than half of reports. Nephrometry scores usually were not included for local therapy candidates (12% [30/257]). Academic practices were significantly more likely than community practices to include mass characterization details, probability of malignancy, and staging. Community practices were significantly more likely to include management recommendations.<br />Conclusions: Renal mass reporting elements considered essential or preferred often are omitted in radiology reports. Variation exists across radiologists and practice settings. A standardized template may mitigate these inconsistencies.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
2366-0058
Volume :
43
Issue :
12
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Abdominal radiology (New York)
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
29666953
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1609-x