Experience with a frontal core biopsy device in soft tissue and bone lesions.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and cost of a new frontloading biopsy system, Spirotome® (system 1), in musculoskeletal lesions, and to compare the results with those obtained with commonly used biopsy devices. METHODS: System 1 was used in all soft tissue lesions (STL) and osteolytic bone lesions (OBL) of patients who presented at our department for CT-guided biopsy between January 2009 and June 2010. Accuracy and cost were compared to those of Bonopty® (system 2) and Tru-cut (system 3) procedures. RESULTS: The efficacy of system 1 was 85% in STL and 89% in OBL. The procedure was well tolerated and caused no complications. System 3 had an efficacy of 84% in STL and OBL combined. The efficacy of system 2 in OBL was 85%. The cost of single-use system 1 and system 2 was comparable, the cost of system 3 and multiuse system 1 compared to single-use system 1 was 25 and 7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of system 1 in biopsy of STL and OBL was better than that of system 3. In OBL, the efficacy of system 1 was better than that of system 2. In STL at hazardous locations and small OBL with a thin cortical shell, system 1 offers the advantage of variable length and controlled loading. In these cases, single-use system 1 was cost-effective when compared to surgical biopsy. The cost per procedure of multiuse system 1 was lower than of system 3.

The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys.

PURPOSE: To investigate and compare the opinions and expectations regarding the radiology report of radiologists and referring clinicians and to identify trends, discordance, and discontent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 3884 clinicians and 292 radiologists were invited by e-mail to participate in two internet surveys, COVER (for clinical specialists and general practitioners) and ROVER (for radiologists). Respondents were asked to state their level of agreement with 46 statements according to a Likert scale. Dichotomized results were compared by using the χ(2) statistic. RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-three completed forms were prepared for analysis, corresponding to a response rate of 21%. Most clinicians declared themselves satisfied with the radiology report. A large majority considered it an indispensable tool and accepted that the radiologist is the best person to interpret the images. Nearly all agreed that they need to provide adequate clinical information and state clearly what clinical question they want to have answered. Itemized reporting was preferred for complex examinations by both the clinicians and the radiologists. A majority in both groups were convinced that learning to report needs to be taught in a structured way. CONCLUSION: The surveys emphasize the role of the radiologist as a well-informed medical imaging specialist; however, some of the preferences of radiologists and clinicians diverge fundamentally from the way radiology is practiced and taught today, and implementing these preferences may have far-reaching consequences.

How do referring clinicians want radiologists to report? Suggestions from the COVER survey.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate what referring clinicians suggest when asked how the quality of radiology reports can be improved. METHODS: At the end of the questionnaire of the COVER survey, a bi-national quantitative survey on the radiology report among referring physicians, clinical specialists and general practitioners were able to freely enter suggestions with regard to improving the quality of the report. These suggestions were isolated from the quantitative results. Subjects and themes were identified, examined, ordered, counted, compared and analysed. RESULTS: Of a total of 3,884 invitations to participate, we received 735 response forms from clinicians (18.9%), 233 (31.7%) of which contained suggestions. Issues mentioned most frequently were the need for clinical information and a clinical question, for a conclusion, structuring, communicating directly with the clinician, completeness, integrating images or referring to images, mentioning relevant findings outside of the clinical question, mentioning a diagnosis or suitable differential diagnosis, and concise reporting. CONCLUSION: Although these spontaneous suggestions are erratic and sometimes contradictory, they summarise the ideas as well as the emotions of these clients of the radiology department. Therefore it is advisable to take them into account when developing new ways of reporting.

Structure and content of radiology reports, a quantitative and qualitative study in eight medical centers.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: In order to determine how the quality of the radiology report can be improved, the variation in content, form and length of the report needs to be examined. The purpose of the present study was to investigate and compare the length and structure of radiology reports (reports of abdominal CT examinations) in eight hospitals in the Netherlands and Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight hundred reports--100 from each collaborating center--were collected. After exclusion of the reports that did not fulfill the criteria for a standard CT examination of the abdomen, 525 were retained for further study. The structure of each report was analyzed and the constituting parts (technical information, description of the findings, conclusion, advice, remark, note) were determined. The character and word count of the report and its constituting parts were measured and the results were grouped according to the country (Netherlands vs. Belgium/Flanders), the qualification of the radiologist (staff members vs. residents.) and the nature of the hospital (university medical centers vs. community hospitals). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the Netherlands and Flanders, and between staff members and residents. The authors also found a wide variety in the lay-out and the overall content of the radiology report. CONCLUSION: While most of the differences we found are probably rooted in local tradition, a standard model for the radiology report in centers sharing the same language may be a means to avoid interpretation mistakes by referring physicians, and to promote better care.