Heterogeneous liver on research ultrasound identifies children with cystic fibrosis at high risk of advanced liver disease.

BACKGROUND: This study examines whether heterogeneous (HTG) pattern on liver ultrasound (US) identifies children at risk for advanced cystic fibrosis liver disease (aCFLD). METHODS: Prospective 6-year multicenter case-controlled cohort study. Children with pancreatic insufficient cystic fibrosis (CF) aged 3-12 years without known cirrhosis underwent screening US. Participants with HTG were matched (by age, Pseudomonas infection status and center) 1:2 with participants with normal (NL) US pattern. Clinical status and laboratory data were obtained annually and US bi-annually for 6 years. Primary endpoint was development of nodular (NOD) US pattern consistent with aCFLD. RESULTS: 722 participants underwent screening US, with 65 HTG and 592 NL. Final cohort included 55 HTG and 116 NL with ≥ 1 follow-up US. ALT, AST, GGTP, FIB-4, GPR and APRI were higher, and platelets were lower in HTG compared to NL. HTG had a 9.5-fold increased incidence (95% confidence interval [CI]:3.4, 26.7, p<0.0001, 32.7% vs 3.4%) of NOD versus NL. HTG had a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 75% for subsequent NOD. Negative predictive value of a NL US for subsequent NOD was 96%. Multivariate logistic prediction model that included baseline US, age, and log(GPR) improved the C-index to 0.90 compared to only baseline US (C-index 0.78). Based on survival analysis, 50% of HTG develop NOD after 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: Research US finding of HTG identifies children with CF with a 30-50% risk for aCFLD. A score based on US pattern, age and GPR may refine the identification of individuals at high risk for aCFLD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospective Study of Ultrasound to Predict Hepatic Cirrhosis in CF: NCT 01,144,507 (observational study, no consort checklist).

Improving consistency in radiology reporting through the use of department-wide standardized structured reporting.

PURPOSE: To successfully develop a department-wide standardized structured reporting program and achieve widespread adoption throughout the radiology department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A structured reporting work group was formed in February 2010 to oversee development of standardized structured reports for a radiology department of 36 radiologists at a tertiary care children's hospital. The committee reached consensus on report organization and provided written guidelines and checklists for division representatives to aid in creation of the structured reports. Report drafts were reviewed by a subcommittee and revised until agreement was reached with the report author. Each report was vetted by all radiologists who would be using the report, and further revisions were made, as appropriate. Reports were then entered into the speech recognition system so that each report was associated with a procedure code or a group of codes from the radiology information system. This enabled automatic report population within the speech recognition system. The initiative was completed by September 2011. Quarterly audits were performed to evaluate for adherence to the standard report format and use of the normal report in cases in which the radiologist believed the study was normal. In August 2012, radiologists were surveyed as to their impressions of the structured reporting program. RESULTS: A total of 228 standardized structured reports were created within 2 years after initiation of the project, corresponding to 199,000 (94%) of 212,000 departmental studies by volume. By the end of the implementation period in September 2011, all 223 (100%) audited reports adhered to the standard report format and 80 (99%) of 81 reports adhered to the normal report. Radiologist feedback was largely favorable. CONCLUSION: Standardized department-wide structured reporting can be implemented in a radiology department, with a high rate of adoption by the radiologists.