Using Brain Tumor MRI Structured Reporting to Quantify the Impact of Imaging on Brain Tumor Boards

Author:

Abidi Syed A.1,Hoch Michael J.2,Hu Ranliang3,Sadigh Gelareh4ORCID,Voloschin Alfredo5,Olson Jeffrey J.6,Shu Hui-Kuo G.7,Neill Stewart G.8,Weinberg Brent D.3ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA

2. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

3. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA

4. Department of Radiology, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, CA 92868, USA

5. Department of Neuro-Oncology, Orlando Health Cancer Institute, Orlando, FL 32806, USA

6. Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA

7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA

8. Department of Pathology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA

Abstract

Multidisciplinary tumor boards (TB) are an essential part of brain tumor care, but quantifying the impact of imaging on patient management is challenging due to treatment complexity and a lack of quantitative outcome measures. This work uses a structured reporting system for classifying brain tumor MRIs, the brain tumor reporting and data system (BT-RADS), in a TB setting to prospectively assess the impact of imaging review on patient management. Published criteria were used to prospectively assign three separate BT-RADS scores (an initial radiology report, secondary TB presenter review, and TB consensus) to brain MRIs reviewed at an adult brain TB. Clinical recommendations at TB were noted and management changes within 90 days after TB were determined by chart review. In total, 212 MRIs in 130 patients (median age = 57 years) were reviewed. Agreement was 82.2% between report and presenter, 79.0% between report and consensus, and 90.1% between presenter and consensus. Rates of management change increased with increasing BT-RADS scores (0—3.1%, 1a—0%, 1b—66.7%, 2—8.3%, 3a—38.5%, 3b—55.9, 3c—92.0%, and 4—95.6%). Of 184 (86.8%) cases with clinical follow-up within 90 days after the tumor board, 155 (84.2%) of the recommendations were implemented. Structured scoring of MRIs provides a quantitative way to assess rates of agreement interpretation alongside how often management changes are recommended and implemented in a TB setting.

Funder

RSNA Research & Education Foundation

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Reference29 articles.

1. National Cancer Institute (2023, February 25). Definition of Tumor Board Review, Available online: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/tumor-board-review.

2. The impact of the multidisciplinary tumor board on head and neck cancer outcomes;Liu;Laryngoscope,2020

3. Impact of GI Tumor Board on Patient Management and Adherence to Guidelines;AlFarhan;J. Glob. Oncol.,2018

4. An evaluation of the impact of a multidisciplinary team, in a single centre, on treatment and survival in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer;Forrest;Br. J. Cancer,2005

5. Tumor board: More than treatment planning—A 1-year prospective survey;Gatcliffe;J. Cancer Educ.,2008

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3