Most oncologists prefer cancer-specific structured radiology reports
Although the majority of oncology providers prefer cancer-specific structured reporting templates, a significant portion of radiologists remain hesitant to embrace them.
This is due, in part, to providers finding the oncology templates time-consuming to adapt to or “inflexible” in terms of creativity, according to survey results published recently in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology.
Structured reporting templates are intended to streamline the reporting process and improve communication between providers, in addition to painting a clearer picture of radiologists’ impressions. These reports can be taken a step further by designing them so they address multiple aspects of a condition, such as cancer. Level 1 reports allow a number of subheadings and specified layouts, while Level 2 reports consist of predefined terminology and varying degrees of IT tick boxes.
“In Oncology, Level 1 reports may be cancer specific, particularly for staging or following a generic tumor, lymph node and metastases order,” Kirsten L Gormly, MD, of Jones Radiology in South Australia, and co-authors explained. “The oncology template with generic headings of tumors, lymph nodes and metastases with measurement tables was designed to improve consistency, clarity and communication between oncologists and radiologists.”
The survey queried providers on their use and opinions of Level 1 oncology structured reports. It was distributed to more than 350 radiologists across Australia and New Zealand to gain a better understanding of the perceived benefits and limitations of oncology templates based on factors such as age, experience level and practice settings.
A total of 164 providers completed the survey. Of those, 21% indicated they had never used these templates before, while around half said they use them for at least 75% of their oncology cases.
Providers most likely to opt for oncology templates were more seasoned radiologists with between 10 to 20 years of experience under their belt; they also reported reading more oncology CT exams—at least 10 per week. Those who preferred templates highlighted “improved communication between providers” and “clarity” of findings as the greatest benefits, while those who did not use the templates cited “lack of experience in template reporting” and templates seeming more “inflexible” compared to free-text reporting.
Despite some of the perceived barriers, 31% of respondents who reported never using oncology templates signaled desire for their organization to implement them.
“The concern of an OT causing ‘interference with efficient workflow’ suggests that template integration into the RIS/PACS system is integral to the success of OT's widespread use,” the authors suggested. “Full integration of templates into systems can allow auto-population of the study type, clinical information, type and dose of contrast and technique, which saves time. Further advances include measurements automatically integrated into the report.”
Read more about the group’s findings, including additional suggestions on how to improve utilization rates, here.
In addition to her background in journalism, Hannah also has patient-facing experience in clinical settings, having spent more than 12 years working as a registered rad tech. She began covering the medical imaging industry for Innovate Healthcare in 2021.