Indian Journal of Radiology Indian Journal of Radiology  

   Login   | Users online: 3024

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size     


ONCOIMAGING Table of Contents   
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 30  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 7-12
Impact of a standardized reporting format on the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging

1 Department of Radio Diagnosis, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Colo-rectal Surgery, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
3 Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Akshay D Baheti
Department of Radio Diagnosis, Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ijri.IJRI_308_19

Rights and Permissions

Background and Aims: Besides providing a surgical roadmap, rectal MRI plays a major role in treatment planning. We recently started using a structured template for reporting rectal cancer via MRI. We study the impact of using this template at our hospital in terms of number of essential imaging parameters described in the reports as compared to the pre-template free-text reports. Methods: A structured rectal MRI reporting template was created in consensus with members of the colorectal tumour board and was introduced in the department, which included 14 essential parameters to be mentioned in the reports. We conducted a retrospective analysis of rectal MRI reports of 100 cases with histologically proven rectal cancer, comprising 50 consecutive free-text reports before the template was introduced and 50 consecutive structured reports after its introduction, checking for the presence or absence of inclusion of the 14 parameters. An anonymous online feedback survey was conducted as well after the introduction of the template for the members of the colorectal tumour board. Results: Overall, the total number of parameters reported increased from a median value of 10 (range 6-13) to 14 (range 12-14). The common unreported parameters prior to template introduction included T staging, presence or absence of restricted diffusion, anterior peritoneal reflection (APR) involvement, and presence or absence of extramural vascular invasion; these were reported in 16%, 22%, 30% and 50% respectively. These improved to 98-100% reporting after template introduction. Maximum improvement was in T staging (16% to 98%) (P < 0.0001), restricted diffusion on DWI (from 22% to 100%) (P < 0.0001) and APR involvement (from 30% to 100%) (P < 0.0001). The most common unreported parameter after template introduction was the “tumoral T2 signal intensity” (unreported in 4% cases). The results of the survey were as follows: 100% felt a decreased need to talk to the radiologist to clarify the report, 81.8% felt an improvement in the quality of reporting as compared to free style reports, and 91% felt that the new template is easier to interpret. Conclusion: The introduction of a structured template for rectal cancer significantly improved the quality of rectal MRI reports, along with the satisfaction of referring providers.

Print this article     Email this article

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
  Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
  Reader Comments
  Email Alert *
  Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded346    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal