Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective

Abstract Background Structured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists’ opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist’s report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication. Methods A 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation. Results A total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1–3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists’ service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists’ service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist. Conclusion Structured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa [verfasserIn] Dania Cioni [verfasserIn] Emanuele Neri [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2021

Schlagwörter:	Medical oncologist Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging Communication Structured report Standardized criteria

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Cancer Imaging - BMC, 2014, 21(2021), 1, Seite 12
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:21 ; year:2021 ; number:1 ; pages:12

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ00868569X

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ00868569X
003	DE-627
005	20230310013011.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230225s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ00868569X
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a R895-920
050		0	\|a RC254-282
100	0		\|a Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective
264		1	\|c 2021
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Abstract Background Structured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists’ opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist’s report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication. Methods A 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation. Results A total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1–3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists’ service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists’ service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist. Conclusion Structured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging.
650		4	\|a Medical oncologist
650		4	\|a Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging
650		4	\|a Communication
650		4	\|a Structured report
650		4	\|a Standardized criteria
653		0	\|a Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine
653		0	\|a Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
700	0		\|a Dania Cioni \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Emanuele Neri \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Cancer Imaging \|d BMC, 2014 \|g 21(2021), 1, Seite 12 \|w (DE-627)36374732X \|w (DE-600)2104862-9 \|x 14707330 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:21 \|g year:2021 \|g number:1 \|g pages:12
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 21 \|j 2021 \|e 1 \|h 12

Indexfelder

author_variant	e v s p evsp d c dc e n en
matchkey_str	article:14707330:2021----::ailgrprignnooynooi
hierarchy_sort_str	2021
callnumber-subject-code	R
publishDate	2021
allfields	10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 doi (DE-627)DOAJ00868569X (DE-599)DOAJ09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R895-920 RC254-282 Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa verfasserin aut Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Structured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists’ opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist’s report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication. Methods A 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation. Results A total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1–3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists’ service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists’ service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist. Conclusion Structured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging. Medical oncologist Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging Communication Structured report Standardized criteria Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Dania Cioni verfasserin aut Emanuele Neri verfasserin aut In Cancer Imaging BMC, 2014 21(2021), 1, Seite 12 (DE-627)36374732X (DE-600)2104862-9 14707330 nnns volume:21 year:2021 number:1 pages:12 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 21 2021 1 12
spelling	10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 doi (DE-627)DOAJ00868569X (DE-599)DOAJ09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R895-920 RC254-282 Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa verfasserin aut Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Structured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists’ opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist’s report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication. Methods A 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation. Results A total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1–3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists’ service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists’ service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist. Conclusion Structured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging. Medical oncologist Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging Communication Structured report Standardized criteria Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Dania Cioni verfasserin aut Emanuele Neri verfasserin aut In Cancer Imaging BMC, 2014 21(2021), 1, Seite 12 (DE-627)36374732X (DE-600)2104862-9 14707330 nnns volume:21 year:2021 number:1 pages:12 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 21 2021 1 12
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 doi (DE-627)DOAJ00868569X (DE-599)DOAJ09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R895-920 RC254-282 Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa verfasserin aut Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Structured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists’ opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist’s report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication. Methods A 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation. Results A total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1–3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists’ service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists’ service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist. Conclusion Structured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging. Medical oncologist Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging Communication Structured report Standardized criteria Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Dania Cioni verfasserin aut Emanuele Neri verfasserin aut In Cancer Imaging BMC, 2014 21(2021), 1, Seite 12 (DE-627)36374732X (DE-600)2104862-9 14707330 nnns volume:21 year:2021 number:1 pages:12 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 21 2021 1 12
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 doi (DE-627)DOAJ00868569X (DE-599)DOAJ09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R895-920 RC254-282 Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa verfasserin aut Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Structured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists’ opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist’s report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication. Methods A 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation. Results A total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1–3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists’ service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists’ service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist. Conclusion Structured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging. Medical oncologist Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging Communication Structured report Standardized criteria Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Dania Cioni verfasserin aut Emanuele Neri verfasserin aut In Cancer Imaging BMC, 2014 21(2021), 1, Seite 12 (DE-627)36374732X (DE-600)2104862-9 14707330 nnns volume:21 year:2021 number:1 pages:12 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 21 2021 1 12
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 doi (DE-627)DOAJ00868569X (DE-599)DOAJ09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R895-920 RC254-282 Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa verfasserin aut Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Structured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists’ opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist’s report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication. Methods A 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation. Results A total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1–3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists’ service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists’ service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist. Conclusion Structured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging. Medical oncologist Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging Communication Structured report Standardized criteria Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Dania Cioni verfasserin aut Emanuele Neri verfasserin aut In Cancer Imaging BMC, 2014 21(2021), 1, Seite 12 (DE-627)36374732X (DE-600)2104862-9 14707330 nnns volume:21 year:2021 number:1 pages:12 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 21 2021 1 12
language	English
source	In Cancer Imaging 21(2021), 1, Seite 12 volume:21 year:2021 number:1 pages:12
sourceStr	In Cancer Imaging 21(2021), 1, Seite 12 volume:21 year:2021 number:1 pages:12
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Medical oncologist Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging Communication Structured report Standardized criteria Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Cancer Imaging
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa @@aut@@ Dania Cioni @@aut@@ Emanuele Neri @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2021-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	36374732X
id	DOAJ00868569X
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ00868569X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230310013011.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ00868569X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R895-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC254-282</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background Structured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists’ opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist’s report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication. Methods A 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation. Results A total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1–3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists’ service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists’ service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist. Conclusion Structured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Medical oncologist</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Communication</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Structured report</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Standardized criteria</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dania Cioni</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Emanuele Neri</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Cancer Imaging</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2014</subfield><subfield code="g">21(2021), 1, Seite 12</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)36374732X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2104862-9</subfield><subfield code="x">14707330</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:21</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">21</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">12</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa
spellingShingle	Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa misc R895-920 misc RC254-282 misc Medical oncologist misc Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging misc Communication misc Structured report misc Standardized criteria misc Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine misc Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective
authorStr	Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)36374732X
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	R895-920
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	14707330
topic_title	R895-920 RC254-282 Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective Medical oncologist Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging Communication Structured report Standardized criteria
topic	misc R895-920 misc RC254-282 misc Medical oncologist misc Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging misc Communication misc Structured report misc Standardized criteria misc Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine misc Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
topic_unstemmed	misc R895-920 misc RC254-282 misc Medical oncologist misc Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging misc Communication misc Structured report misc Standardized criteria misc Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine misc Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
topic_browse	misc R895-920 misc RC254-282 misc Medical oncologist misc Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging misc Communication misc Structured report misc Standardized criteria misc Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine misc Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Cancer Imaging
hierarchy_parent_id	36374732X
hierarchy_top_title	Cancer Imaging
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)36374732X (DE-600)2104862-9
title	Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ00868569X (DE-599)DOAJ09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8
title_full	Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective
author_sort	Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa
journal	Cancer Imaging
journalStr	Cancer Imaging
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2021
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	12
author_browse	Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa Dania Cioni Emanuele Neri
container_volume	21
class	R895-920 RC254-282
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective
callnumber	R895-920
title_auth	Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective
abstract	Abstract Background Structured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists’ opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist’s report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication. Methods A 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation. Results A total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1–3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists’ service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists’ service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist. Conclusion Structured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging.
abstractGer	Abstract Background Structured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists’ opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist’s report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication. Methods A 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation. Results A total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1–3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists’ service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists’ service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist. Conclusion Structured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging.
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract Background Structured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists’ opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist’s report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication. Methods A 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation. Results A total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1–3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists’ service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists’ service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist. Conclusion Structured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective
url	https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5 https://doaj.org/article/09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8 https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330
remote_bool	true
author2	Dania Cioni Emanuele Neri
author2Str	Dania Cioni Emanuele Neri
ppnlink	36374732X
callnumber-subject	R - General Medicine
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5
callnumber-a	R895-920
up_date	2024-07-03T19:29:08.971Z
_version_	1803587366700449792
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ00868569X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230310013011.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ00868569X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R895-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC254-282</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Elisabeta Valeria Spînu-Popa</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background Structured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists’ opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist’s report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication. Methods A 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation. Results A total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1–3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists’ service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists’ service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist. Conclusion Structured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Medical oncologist</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Radiologist specialized in oncologic imaging</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Communication</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Structured report</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Standardized criteria</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dania Cioni</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Emanuele Neri</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Cancer Imaging</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2014</subfield><subfield code="g">21(2021), 1, Seite 12</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)36374732X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2104862-9</subfield><subfield code="x">14707330</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:21</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/09f7f1be45314fe1a439e2ab2bcfefe8</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-021-00431-5</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">21</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">12</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4016485

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?