Dataset Information

Diagnostic performance of Radiological Society of North America structured reporting language for chest computed tomography findings in patients with COVID-19.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the RSNA structured reporting language for chest CT findings in patients with COVID-19.

Material and methods

Patients with suspected COVID-19 who underwent chest CT and RT-PCR tests were enrolled consecutively in this retrospective study, regardless of symptoms. Imaging findings were categorized as "typical", "indeterminate", "atypical", or "negative" according to RSNA reporting language and compared to RT-PCR. "Single, round GGO" and "single, peripheral GGO," do not fit the reporting language, were also analyzed as "indeterminate" patterns.

Results

Of the 1186 patients included in the analysis, the diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed in 388 patients. Of the 388 patients, CT findings were categorized as "typical" in 248, "indeterminate" in 77, and "negative" in 63. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of "typical" findings were 63.9, 99.0, and 87.5% for COVID-19, respectively. In addition to the "typical" findings, the highest diagnostic accuracy of 92.2% was achieved when the "single, peripheral GGO" and "single, round GGO" were considered to be CT-positive.

Conclusion

The RSNA reporting language has significant diagnostic performance for identifying COVID-19 pneumonia. CT findings that do not exactly fit the RSNA reporting language, such as "single, round GGO" and "single, peripheral GGO" improve diagnostic performance.

SUBMITTER: Ozer H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8101342 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Structured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports for lymphoma patients during the staging phase to improve communication between radiologists, members of multidisciplinary teams, and patients. A panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), was established. A modified Delphi process was used to develop the SR and to assess a level of agreement for all report sections. The Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation. The final SR version was divided into four sections: (a) Patient Clinical Data, (b) Clinical Evaluation, (c) Imaging Protocol, and (d) Report, including n = 13 items in the "Patient Clinical Data" section, n = 8 items in the "Clinical Evaluation" section, n = 9 items in the "Imaging Protocol" section, and n = 32 items in the "Report" section. Overall, 62 items were included in the final version of the SR. A dedicated section of significant images was added as part of the report. In the first Delphi round, all sections received more than a good rating (≥3). The overall mean score of the experts and the sum of score for structured report were 4.4 (range 1-5) and 1524 (mean value of 101.6 and standard deviation of 11.8). The Cα correlation coefficient was 0.89 in the first round. In the second Delphi round, all sections received more than an excellent rating (≥4). The overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for structured report were 4.9 (range 3-5) and 1694 (mean value of 112.9 and standard deviation of 4.0). The Cα correlation coefficient was 0.87 in this round. The highest overall means value, highest sum of scores of the panelists, and smallest standard deviation values of the evaluations in this round reflect the increase of the internal consistency and agreement among experts in the second round compared to first round. The accurate statement of imaging data given to referring physicians is critical for patient care; the information contained affects both the decision-making process and the subsequent treatment. The radiology report is the most important source of clinical imaging information. It conveys critical information about the patient's health and the radiologist's interpretation of medical findings. It also communicates information to the referring physicians and records this information for future clinical and research use. The present SR was generated based on a multi-round consensus-building Delphi exercise and uses standardized terminology and structures, in order to adhere to diagnostic/therapeutic recommendations and facilitate enrolment in clinical trials, to reduce any ambiguity that may arise from non-conventional language, and to enable better communication between radiologists and clinicians.

Project description:BackgroundStructured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports in colon cancer during the staging phase in order to improve communication between the radiologist, members of multidisciplinary teams and patients.Materials and methodsA panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, was established. A modified Delphi process was used to develop the SR and to assess a level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation.ResultsThe final SR version was built by including n = 18 items in the "Patient Clinical Data" section, n = 7 items in the "Clinical Evaluation" section, n = 9 items in the "Imaging Protocol" section and n = 29 items in the "Report" section. Overall, 63 items were included in the final version of the SR. Both in the first and second round, all sections received a higher than good rating: a mean value of 4.6 and range 3.6-4.9 in the first round; a mean value of 5.0 and range 4.9-5 in the second round. In the first round, Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was a questionable 0.61. In the first round, the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.6 (range 1-5) and 1111 (mean value 74.07, STD 4.85), respectively. In the second round, Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was an acceptable 0.70. In the second round, the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of score for structured report were 4.9 (range 4-5) and 1108 (mean value 79.14, STD 1.83), respectively. The overall mean score obtained by the experts in the second round was higher than the overall mean score of the first round, with a lower standard deviation value to underline greater agreement among the experts for the structured report reached in this round.ConclusionsA wide implementation of SR is of critical importance in order to offer referring physicians and patients optimum quality of service and to provide researchers with the best quality data in the context of big data exploitation of available clinical data. Implementation is a complex procedure, requiring mature technology to successfully address the multiple challenges of user-friendliness, organization and interoperability.

Project description:BackgroundStructured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms during the staging phase in order to improve communication between the radiologist and members of multidisciplinary teams.Materials and methodsA panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, was established. A Modified Delphi process was used to develop the SR and to assess a level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation.ResultsThe final SR version was built by including n=16 items in the "Patient Clinical Data" section, n=13 items in the "Clinical Evaluation" section, n=8 items in the "Imaging Protocol" section, and n=17 items in the "Report" section. Overall, 54 items were included in the final version of the SR. Both in the first and second round, all sections received more than a good rating: a mean value of 4.7 and range of 4.2-5.0 in the first round and a mean value 4.9 and range of 4.9-5 in the second round. In the first round, the Cα correlation coefficient was a poor 0.57: the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.7 (range 1-5) and 728 (mean value 52.00 and standard deviation 2.83), respectively. In the second round, the Cα correlation coefficient was a good 0.82: the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.9 (range 4-5) and 760 (mean value 54.29 and standard deviation 1.64), respectively.ConclusionsThe present SR, based on a multi-round consensus-building Delphi exercise following in-depth discussion between expert radiologists in gastro-enteric and oncological imaging, derived from a multidisciplinary agreement between a radiologist, medical oncologist and surgeon in order to obtain the most appropriate communication tool for referring physicians.

Project description:Structured reporting (SR) in radiology has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR)-based reports in pancreatic adenocarcinoma during the staging phase in order to improve communication between the radiologist and members of multidisciplinary teams. A panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, was established. A modified Delphi process was used to develop the CT-SR and MRI-SR, assessing a level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation. The final CT-SR version was built by including n = 16 items in the "Patient Clinical Data" section, n = 11 items in the "Clinical Evaluation" section, n = 7 items in the "Imaging Protocol" section, and n = 18 items in the "Report" section. Overall, 52 items were included in the final version of the CT-SR. The final MRI-SR version was built by including n = 16 items in the "Patient Clinical Data" section, n = 11 items in the "Clinical Evaluation" section, n = 8 items in the "Imaging Protocol" section, and n = 14 items in the "Report" section. Overall, 49 items were included in the final version of the MRI-SR. In the first round for CT-SR, all sections received more than a good rating. The overall mean score of the experts was 4.85. The Cα correlation coefficient was 0.85. In the second round, the overall mean score of the experts was 4.87, and the Cα correlation coefficient was 0.94. In the first round, for MRI-SR, all sections received more than a good rating. The overall mean score of the experts was 4.73. The Cα correlation coefficient was 0.82. In the second round, the overall mean score of the experts was 4.91, and the Cα correlation coefficient was 0.93. The CT-SR and MRI-SR are based on a multi-round consensus-building Delphi exercise derived from the multidisciplinary agreement of expert radiologists in order to obtain more appropriate communication tools for referring physicians.

Project description:In recent years, there has been a large-scale dissemination of guidelines in radiology in the form of Reporting & Data Systems (RADS). The use of iodinated contrast media (ICM) has a fundamental role in enhancing the diagnostic capabilities of computed tomography (CT) but poses certain risks. The scope of the present review is to summarize the current role of ICM only in clinical reporting guidelines for CT that have adopted the "RADS" approach, focusing on three specific questions per each RADS: (I) what is the scope of the scoring system; (II) how is ICM used in the scoring system; (III) what is the impact of ICM enhancement on the scoring. We analyzed the original articles for each of the latest versions of RADS that can be used in CT [PubMed articles between January, 2005 and March, 2023 in English and American College of Radiology (ACR) official website]. We found 14 RADS suitable for use in CT out of 28 RADS described in the literature. Four RADS were validated by the ACR: Colonography-RADS (C-RADS), Liver Imaging-RADS (LI-RADS), Lung CT Screening-RADS (Lung-RADS), and Neck Imaging-RADS (NI-RADS). One RADS was validated by the ACR in collaboration with other cardiovascular scientific societies: Coronary Artery Disease-RADS 2.0 (CAD-RADS). Nine RADS were proposed by other scientific groups: Bone Tumor Imaging-RADS (BTI-RADS), Bone‑RADS, Coronary Artery Calcium Data & Reporting System (CAC-DRS), Coronavirus Disease 2019 Imaging-RADS (COVID-RADS), COVID-19-RADS (CO-RADS), Interstitial Lung Fibrosis Imaging-RADS (ILF-RADS), Lung-RADS (LU-RADS), Node-RADS, and Viral Pneumonia Imaging-RADS (VP-RADS). This overview suggests that ICM is not strictly necessary for the study of bones and calcifications (CAC-DRS, BTI-RADS, Bone-RADS), lung parenchyma (Lung-RADS, LU-RADS, COVID-RADS, CO-RADS, VP-RADS and ILF-RADS), and in CT colonography (C-RADS). On the other hand, ICM plays a key role in CT angiography (CAD-RADS), in the study of liver parenchyma (LI-RADS), and in the evaluation of soft tissues and lymph nodes (NI-RADS, Node-RADS). Future studies are needed in order to evaluate the impact of the new iodinated and non-iodinate contrast media, artificial intelligence tools and dual energy CT in the assignment of RADS scores.

Project description:ObjectiveChest computed tomography (CT) imaging is being increasingly used for potential lung donor assessment. However, the efficacy of CT imaging in this setting remains unknown. We hypothesize that chest CT imaging independently affects the decision-making process in donor lung utilization.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adult donation after brain death donors managed through our local organ procurement organization from June 2011 to November 2016. An experienced thoracic radiologist independently reviewed donor chest CT and chest x-ray images in a blinded, standardized manner to determine the presence of structural lung disease (eg, emphysema, interstitial lung disease [ILD]) and acute abnormalities (eg, traumatic lung injury [TLI]). Distinct models of lung utilization were fit to groups with initial partial pressure of oxygen (iPaO2) ≤300 mm Hg (suboptimal) and iPaO2 >300 mm Hg (optimal).ResultsThe organ procurement organization managed 753 donors during the study period, with a lung utilization rate ([lung donors/all organ donors] × 100) of 36.5% (275 of 753). Four hundred forty-five (59.1%) donors received chest CT imaging, revealing emphysema (13.7%), ILD (2.5%), and TLI (7.2%). In univariate analysis, findings of TLI (odds ratio [OR], 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-4.61) were positively associated with lung utilization, whereas findings of emphysema (OR, 0.18; CI, 0.08-0.40) were negatively associated with utilization. In multivariate analysis, CT findings of emphysema (OR, 0.21; CI 0.08-0.54) remained negatively associated with utilization. No potential donors with CT findings of ILD became lung donors. After controlling for chest x-ray findings, chest CT imaging findings of structural lung disease remained negatively associated with utilization (P = .0001). Lung utilization rate in the suboptimal and optimal iPaO2 populations was 35.1% and 41.4%, respectively, and CT findings of emphysema had a significant association with nonutilization in both groups.ConclusionsIn the evaluation of potential lung donors, chest CT imaging findings of structural lung disease, such as emphysema and ILD, have a significant negative association with lung utilization. Our findings suggest that chest CT imaging might be an important adjunct to conventional lung donor assessment criteria.