Development and application of an electronic synoptic report for reporting and management of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening examination.

BACKGROUND: Interpretation of Low Dose CT scans and protocol driven management of findings is a key aspect of lung cancer screening program performance. Reliable and reproducible methods are needed to communicate radiologists' interpretation to the screening program or clinicians driving management decision. METHODS: We performed an audit of a subset of dictated reports from the PANCAN study to assess for omissions. We developed an electronic synoptic reporting tool for radiologists embedded in a clinical documentation system software. The tool was then used for reporting as part of the Alberta Lung Cancer Screening Study and McGill University Health Centre Pilot Lung Cancer Screening Program. RESULTS: Fifty reports were audited for completeness. At least one omission was noted in 30 (70%) of reports, with a major omission (missing lobe, size, type of nodule in report or actionable incidental finding in recommendation section of report) in 24 (48%). Details of the reporting template and functionality such as automated nodule cancer risk assessment, Lung-RADS category assignment, auto-generated narrative type report as well as personalize participant results letter is provided. A description of the system's performance in its application in 2815 CT reports is then summarized. CONCLUSIONS: We found that narrative type radiologist reports for lung cancer screening CT examinations frequently lacked specific discrete data elements required for management. We demonstrate the successful implementation of a radiology synoptic reporting system for use in lung cancer screening, and the use of this information to drive program management and communications.

Application of Lung-Screening Reporting and Data System Versus Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Nodule Risk Calculation in the Alberta Lung Cancer Screening Study.

BACKGROUND: False-positive scans and resultant needless early recalls can increase harms and reduce cost-effectiveness of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening. How LDCT scans are interpreted and classified may impact these metrics. METHODS: The Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer risk calculator was used to determine nodule risk of malignancy on baseline screening LDCTs in the Alberta Lung Cancer Screening Study, which were then classified according to Nodule Risk Classification (NRC) categories and ACR Lung Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS). Test performance characteristics and early recall rates were compared for each approach. RESULTS: In all, 775 baseline screens were analyzed. After a mean of 763 days (±203) of follow-up, lung cancer was detected in 22 participants (2.8%). No statistically significant differences in sensitivity, specificity, or area under the receiver operator characteristic curve occurred between the NRC and Lung-RADS nodule management approaches. Early recall rates were 9.2% and 9.3% for NRC and Lung-RADS, with the NRC unnecessarily recalling some ground glass nodules, and the Lung-RADS recalling many smaller solid nodules with low risk of malignancy. CONCLUSION: Performances of both the NRC and Lung-RADS in this cohort were very good with a trend to higher sensitivity for the NRC. Early recall rates were less than 10% with each approach, significantly lower than rates using the National Lung Screening Trial cutoffs. Further reductions in early recall rates without compromising sensitivity could be achieved by increasing the NRC threshold to 20% for ground glass nodules or by applying the nodule risk calculator with a 5% threshold to 6- to 10-mm solid nodules under Lung-RADS.

Ultrasonographic findings 6 months after 11-gauge vacuum-assisted large-core breast biopsy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the ultrasonographic features of post-biopsy change 6 months after 11-gauge vacuum-assisted large-core breast biopsy of pathologically proven benign lesions. Using the literature as a reference, we hypothesized that large-core breast biopsy would result in tissue changes that may mimic malignancy and may be more apparent on ultrasonography than on mammography. METHODS: Two radiologists whose subspecialty is breast imaging retrospectively reviewed the pre-biopsy and 6-month follow-up sonograms of 24 patients with pathologically proven benign lesions. The images were assessed for the number and type of ultrasonographic features. A Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category was assigned to each lesion before biopsy and at 6-month follow-up. The composition of breast tissue surrounding the lesion was assessed as fatty, mixed fibroglandular or dense. RESULTS: The frequency of ultrasonographic changes at 6 months after 11-gauge vacuum-assisted large-core breast biopsy was more frequent than the rate of post-biopsy change previously reported to occur mammographically. The nature of these changes may mimic malignancy in some cases. CONCLUSION: The ultrasonographic appearance of the breast after large-core breast biopsy may mimic malignancy and is, therefore, a potential pitfall when interpreting a post-biopsy sonogram.

Accuracy of marker clip placement after mammotome breast biopsy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess, after stereotaxic, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy, the accuracy of marker clip deployment for guiding subsequent needle localization procedures and surgery. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 100 vacuum-assisted core breast biopsies that were followed by marker clip deployment. Craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) mammograms were used to locate clips relative to the centre of the target lesion in 5-mm increments. RESULTS: In the 94 of 100 cases adequate for review, maximum marker clip displacement of less than 10 mm on either the CC or MLO views was observed in 68 (72%) cases. In 9 (10%) cases, the localization clip was positioned more that 24 mm from the target lesion. CONCLUSION: Post-biopsy CC and MLO radiographs are recommended to identify those cases in which there is a significant difference between the location of the marker clip and the biopsied lesion.