|
|
||||||||
Health Policy and Practice |
1 Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021.
PURPOSE: To determine the frequency and clinical importance of discordance between the initial interpretation of computed tomographic (CT) scans of the body and subsequent interpretations in patients with biopsy-proved cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The initial and reinterpretation reports for 213 CT scans of the body submitted for official review were compared independently by two radiologists. Sixty-nine sets of reports were excluded because the reviewing radiologists and the outside radiologists had prior CT scans from differing dates to use for comparison. One set of reports was excluded because of lack of clinical follow-up.
RESULTS: The interpretations were graded as "agree" in 90 patients (63%), "major disagreement" in 24 patients (17%), and "minor disagreement" in 29 patients (20%). A theoretic change in treatment could have occurred in nine of 53 cases of disagreement (17%). An actual change in treatment occurred in five of 53 cases of disagreement (9%).
CONCLUSION: Discordant interpretations were frequent (53 of 143 cases [37%]), were often major (24 of 143 cases [17%]), and resulted in actual treatment changes in five of all 143 cases (3%). Reinterpretation of body CT scans can have a substantial effect on the clinical care of individual patients with proved malignancy.
Index terms: Computed tomography (CT), clinical effectiveness Diagnostic radiology, observer performance Images, interpretation Radiology and radiologists, outcomes studies
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
B. Siewert, J. Sosna, A. McNamara, V. Raptopoulos, and J. B. Kruskal Quality Initiatives: Missed Lesions at Abdominal Oncologic CT: Lessons Learned from Quality Assurance RadioGraphics, May 1, 2008; 28(3): 623 - 638. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. B. Ruchman, J. Jaeger, E. F. Wiggins III, S. Seinfeld, V. Thakral, S. Bolla, and S. Wallach Preliminary Radiology Resident Interpretations Versus Final Attending Radiologist Interpretations and the Impact on Patient Care in a Community Hospital Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2007; 189(3): 523 - 526. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Peldschus, P. Herzog, S. A. Wood, J. I. Cheema, P. Costello, and U. J. Schoepf Computer-Aided Diagnosis as a Second Reader: Spectrum of Findings in CT Studies of the Chest Interpreted as Normal Chest, September 1, 2005; 128(3): 1517 - 1523. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Berlin Potential Legal Ramifications of Whole-Body CT Screening: Taking a Peek into Pandora's Box Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2003; 180(2): 317 - 322. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. A. Loevner, A. I. Sonners, B. J. Schulman, K. Slawek, R. S. Weber, D. I. Rosenthal, G. Moonis, and A. A. Chalian Reinterpretation of Cross-Sectional Images in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer in the Setting of a Multidisciplinary Cancer Center AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., November 1, 2002; 23(10): 1622 - 1626. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. J. White Jr, M. J. Gollub, D. M. Panicek, A. M. Bach, and R. A. Castellino CT Reinterpretation • Dr Gollub and colleagues respond: Radiology, August 1, 1999; 212(2): 601a - 601. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |