Quantitative Radiology Reporting in Oncology: Survey of Oncologists and Radiologists.

OBJECTIVE: Tumor quantification is essential for determining the clinical efficacy and response to established and evolving therapeutic agents in cancer trials. The purpose of this study was to seek the opinions of oncologists and radiologists about quantitative interactive and multimedia reporting. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to 253 oncologists and registrars and to 35 radiologists at our institution through an online survey application. Questions were asked about current reporting methods, methods for Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) tumor measurement, and preferred reporting format. RESULTS: The overall response rates were 43.1% (109/253) for oncologists and 80.0% (28/35) for radiologists. The oncologists treated more than 40 tumor types. Most of the oncologists (65.7% [67/102]) and many radiologists (44.4% [12/27]) (p = 0.020) deemed the current traditional qualitative radiology reports insufficient for reporting tumor burden and communicating measurements. Most of the radiologists (77.8% [21/27]) and oncologists (85.5% [71/83]) (p = 0.95) agreed that key images with measurement annotations helped in finding previously measured tumors; however, only 43% of radiologists regularly saved key images. Both oncologists (64.2% [70/109]) and radiologists (67.9% [19/28]) (p = 0.83) preferred the ability to hyperlink measurements from reports to images of lesions as opposed to text-only reports. Approximately 60% of oncologists indicated that they handwrote tumor measurements on RECIST forms, and 40% used various digital formats. Most of the oncologists (93%) indicated that managing tumor measurements within a PACS would be superior to handwritten data entry and retyping of data into a cancer database. CONCLUSION: Oncologists and radiologists agree that quantitative interactive reporting would be superior to traditional text-only qualitative reporting for assessing tumor burden in cancer trials. A PACS reporting system that enhances and promotes collaboration between radiologists and oncologists improves quantitative reporting of tumors.

Computer-Assisted Flagging of Individuals at High Risk of Colorectal Cancer in a Large Health Maintenance Organization Using the ColonFlag Test.

PURPOSE: To evaluate in a sample of adults who had been noncompliant with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening whether screening could be enhanced by an automated patient recall system based on identifying high-risk individuals using the ColonFlag test and an electronic medical record database. METHODS: A total of 79,671 individuals who were determined to be noncompliant with current screening recommendations were identified in the Maccabi Health Services program in Israel. Their cancer risk was determined by ColonFlag using information on age, sex, and CBC results. Doctors of individuals who were flagged as high risk were notified and asked to follow up with their patients. RESULTS: The ColonFlag identified 688 men and women who scored in the highest 0.87 percentile. Of these individuals, 254 had colonoscopies performed by Maccabi physicians, and 19 CRCs (7.5%) were found. An additional 15 cancers primarily identified outside of Maccabi were found through code matching. CONCLUSION: The ColonFlag test is a rapid, efficient, and inexpensive test that can be applied to scan electronic medical records to identify individuals at high risk of CRC who would otherwise avoid screening.