Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1999 Mar;54(3):149-54; discussion 154-5.
doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(99)91003-6.

The value of specialist oncological radiology review of cross-sectional imaging

G J Loughrey  1 , B M Carrington, H Anderson, M J Dobson, F Lo Ying Ping
Affiliations

The value of specialist oncological radiology review of cross-sectional imaging

G J Loughrey et al. Clin Radiol. 1999 Mar.

Abstract

Aim: To determine whether specialist oncological radiology review of outside cross-sectional imaging affects patient management.

Materials and methods: Five hundred and twenty-six patients attending a regional oncology centre had review of outside cross-sectional imaging over a 1-year period. The number of examinations per patient, time interval between examination and review request, and examination technical adequacy were recorded in each case. More detailed evaluation of 124 patients included comparison of outside and review reports for major differences in interpretation by a medical oncologist who also evaluated the effect of the review on patient management. Examinations resulting in major report discrepancies were subjected to independent radiological adjudication.

Results: Eighty-one percent of examinations were reviewed within 3 months of being performed and 94% were considered technically adequate. The hard copy images provided were incomplete in 33% of cases and a calibration rule was absent in 9%. There was a major difference in interpretation in 34% of examinations, the most common cause being differences in interpretation of lymphadenopathy (52%), particularly in the mediastinum (19%). Other problems identified were the failure to record disease dimensions and absence of specific information on key organs in the outside reports. Specialist radiology review changed radiological staging in 19% of patients, affected management in 7% of patients and resulted in a change in treatment in 4%. There was no correlation between management change and any particular tumour type. In 27% of cases, treatment decisions had been made before the review was requested.

Conclusion: Specialist oncological radiology review of outside cross-sectional imaging changed radiological staging in 19% of cases but had little impact on patient management. Oncological cross-sectional imaging techniques in the North West of England are of high quality, probably helped by recent RCR guidelines.

PubMed Disclaimer