Subspecialized radiology review at multidisciplinary pancreas conference: impact on patient management.
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018 Mar 17. doi: 10.1007/s00261-018-1549-5. [Epub ahead of print] Chingkoe CM1, Brook A1, Moser AJ2, Mortele KJ3.
PURPOSE: At our tertiary medical center, multidisciplinary subspecialists meet twice a week during a CME-accredited conference to discuss oncologic and non-oncologic patients with pancreatic diseases at which time a subspecialized abdominal staff radiologist reinterprets the patient's relevant imaging studies. This study assesses the changes in patient management due to imaging reinterpretation during multidisciplinary pancreas conference (MPC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective, IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, imaging studies of all patients discussed at MPC between July 1 and December 31, 2015 were assessed for technical adequacy, and original reports analyzed for congruency with reinterpretation. Management measures included change in diagnosis, clinical stage, treatment, or workup. Additional data were obtained on referring services affected and their resultant change in practice. Changes in surgical resectability, surgical approach, or delayed operative dates were noted for surgeons. Changes in chemotherapeutic or radiation oncology regimens as well as decisions for additional imaging, laboratory workup, or histologic evaluation were also recorded.
RESULTS: A total of 252 patients were included (54.4% males, 45.6% females, mean age 63.71 years). Relevant imaging consisted of 142 abdominal CT scans, 112 abdominal MRI scans, 1 abdominal ultrasound, and 1 nuclear medicine octreotide study of which 69.4% were performed in-house. Image quality was deemed appropriate in 95.2%. Cases presented included solid pancreatic malignancies (n = 140; 55.6%), cystic pancreatic lesions (n = 41; 16.3%), acute and chronic inflammatory conditions (n = 52; 20.6%), and miscellaneous entities (n = 10; 4.0%); 9 (3.6%) cases were normal. Image reinterpretation was congruent with original reports in 56.7%, with minor, moderate, and major discrepancies occurring in 9.5, 26.2%, and 7.5% of cases, respectively. Incongruent reinterpretation was predominantly due to perceptional errors (false-negative reports due to missed findings) and interpretative errors (false-positive results due to over-reporting or misclassification of diagnoses). Services most commonly affected included surgical oncology, radiology, and gastroenterology at 16.7%, 13.1%, and 12.7% of cases, respectively. Management changes included a change in diagnosis in 8.7%, change in clinical stage in 8.7%, change in treatment in 17.9%, and further workup needed in 19.0% of patients, respectively. No change in management occurred in the remaining 61.5% of cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Subspecialized abdominal radiologist reinterpretation in the context of more comprehensive patient information heavily impacts the multidisciplinary management of patients with pancreatic disorders. Further efforts are needed to solidify the abdominal radiologist's role in the multidisciplinary clinical setting.