Explorando la opinión de los especialistas españoles acerca de la utilidad de la radiómica en el área oncológica / Exploring the opinion of Spanish medical specialists about the usefulness of radiomics in oncology

Objetivo Describir el conocimiento y la opinión de los profesionales sanitarios relacionados con la oncología acerca de la radiómica. Métodos Se elaboró un cuestionario de 12 preguntas (respuestas de selección múltiple, de escala tipo Likert y respuesta abierta), dirigido a profesionales relacionados con el diagnóstico/tratamiento de enfermedades oncológicas (oncología, radiodiagnóstico, medicina nuclear, oncología-radioterápica, hematooncología, radiofísica y anatomía patológica). Los participantes se clasificaron en dos grupos según su grado de formación: adjuntos y residentes. Resultados Un total de 114 profesionales completaron la encuesta (54% residentes, principalmente de las especialidades medicina nuclear y radiodiagnóstico). Los adjuntos obtuvieron un mejor desempeño en el área de conocimiento respecto a los residentes. En ambos grupos los encuestados respondieron estar de acuerdo con la utilidad de la radiómica para ayudar a realizar diagnósticos más precisos, facilitando el trabajo de los equipos médicos. Las ideas más frecuentes relacionadas con las desventajas del uso de la radiómica se relacionaron con la falta de sistematización en la adquisición de imágenes y la extracción de parámetros, la necesidad de entrenamiento de los profesionales y la inquietud sobre el reemplazo del trabajo humano por herramientas tecnológicas. Conclusiones La radiómica es un campo de estudio novedoso, cuyos aspectos más generales son conocidos por los profesionales sanitarios. Los profesionales encuestados son optimistas en cuanto a los beneficios que entregan esta y otros tipos de herramientas. El principal problema detectado fue la falta de sistematización en su implementación. El reemplazo de los profesionales y la pérdida de trabajo es una preocupación presente, pero menos prevalente y que puede responder a un fenómeno generacional (AU)

Aim To describe the knowledge and opinion of health professionals regarding the usefulness of radiomics in oncology. Methods A 12-question questionnaire (multiple-choice responses, Likert-type scale, and open response) was developed and sent to professionals related to diagnosis/treatment of oncological diseases (Oncology, Radiodiagnosis, Nuclear Medicine, Radiation Oncology, Hematology-Oncology, Radiophysics and Pathology). Participants were classified into two groups according to their level of training: attending physicians and residents. Results 114 professionals completed the survey (54% residents, mostly from Nuclear Medicine and Radiodiagnostic specialties). Attending physicians obtained a better performance in the area pf knowledge compared to residents. Both groups of respondents agreed regarding the usefulness of radiomics to help make more accurate diagnoses and promoting the work of medical teams and the most frequent disadvantages were related to the lack of systematization in the acquisition of images and extraction of parameters, the need for the training of professionals and concern about the replacement of human work by technological tools. Conclusions Radiomics is a novel field and the most general aspects are known by health professionals. The professionals surveyed were optimistic about the benefits provided by radiomics and other types of tools. The main problem detected was the lack of systematization in its implementation. The replacement of professionals and job loss is a concern, albeit less prevalent, and may respond to a generational phenomenon (AU)

Exploring the opinion of Spanish medical specialists about the usefulness of radiomics in oncology.

AIM: To describe the knowledge and opinion of health professionals regarding the usefulness of radiomics in oncology. METHODS: A 12-question questionnaire (multiple-choice responses, Likert-type scale, and open response) was developed and sent to professionals related to diagnosis/treatment of oncological diseases (Oncology, Radiodiagnosis, Nuclear Medicine, Radiation Oncology, Hematology-Oncology, Radiophysics and Pathology). Participants were classified into two groups according to their level of training: attending physicians and residents. RESULTS: 114 professionals completed the survey (54% residents, mostly from Nuclear Medicine and Radiodiagnostic specialties). Attending physicians obtained a better performance in the area pf knowledge compared to residents. Both groups of respondents agreed regarding the usefulness of radiomics to help make more accurate diagnoses and promoting the work of medical teams and the most frequent disadvantages were related to the lack of systematization in the acquisition of images and extraction of parameters, the need for the training of professionals and concern about the replacement of human work by technological tools. CONCLUSIONS: Radiomics is a novel field and the most general aspects are known by health professionals. The professionals surveyed were optimistic about the benefits provided by radiomics and other types of tools. The main problem detected was the lack of systematization in its implementation. The replacement of professionals and job loss is a concern, albeit less prevalent, and may respond to a generational phenomenon.