Dedicated software to harmonize the follow-up of oncological patients

Mathias Illy , Axel Bartoli , Julien Mancini , Florence Duffaud , Vincent Vidal , Farouk Tradi
{"title":"Dedicated software to harmonize the follow-up of oncological patients","authors":"Mathias Illy ,&nbsp;Axel Bartoli ,&nbsp;Julien Mancini ,&nbsp;Florence Duffaud ,&nbsp;Vincent Vidal ,&nbsp;Farouk Tradi","doi":"10.1016/j.redii.2024.100051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To test and evaluate a sofware dedicated to the follow-up of oncological CT scans for potential use in the Radiology department.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>In this retrospective study, 37 oncological patients with baseline and follow-up CT scans were reinterpreted using a dedicated software. Baseline CT scans were chosen from the imaging reports available in our PACS (picture archiving and communicatin systems). Follow-up interpretations were independently assessed with the software. We evaluated the target lesion sums and the tumor response based on RECIST 1.1 (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There was no significant difference in the target lesion sums and the tumor response assessments between the PACS data and the imaging software. There was no over or underestimation of the disease with the software. There was a sigificant deviation (progression versus stability) in three cases. For two patients, this difference was related to the evaluation of the response of non-target lesions. The difference in the third patient was due to comparison with a previous CT scan than to the baseline exam. There was a miscalculation in 13 % of the reports and in 28 % of the cases the examination was compared to the previous CT scan. Finally, the tumor response was not detailed in 43 % of the follow-up reports.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The use of dedicated oncology monitoring software could help in reducing intepretation time and in limiting human errors.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74676,"journal":{"name":"Research in diagnostic and interventional imaging","volume":"12 ","pages":"Article 100051"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772652524000127/pdfft?md5=959609feb9ca301b923eaa1ed37b79e9&pid=1-s2.0-S2772652524000127-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in diagnostic and interventional imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772652524000127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To test and evaluate a sofware dedicated to the follow-up of oncological CT scans for potential use in the Radiology department.

Materials and methods

In this retrospective study, 37 oncological patients with baseline and follow-up CT scans were reinterpreted using a dedicated software. Baseline CT scans were chosen from the imaging reports available in our PACS (picture archiving and communicatin systems). Follow-up interpretations were independently assessed with the software. We evaluated the target lesion sums and the tumor response based on RECIST 1.1 (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

Results

There was no significant difference in the target lesion sums and the tumor response assessments between the PACS data and the imaging software. There was no over or underestimation of the disease with the software. There was a sigificant deviation (progression versus stability) in three cases. For two patients, this difference was related to the evaluation of the response of non-target lesions. The difference in the third patient was due to comparison with a previous CT scan than to the baseline exam. There was a miscalculation in 13 % of the reports and in 28 % of the cases the examination was compared to the previous CT scan. Finally, the tumor response was not detailed in 43 % of the follow-up reports.

Conclusion

The use of dedicated oncology monitoring software could help in reducing intepretation time and in limiting human errors.
协调肿瘤患者随访的专用软件
材料和方法在这项回顾性研究中,使用专用软件对 37 名肿瘤患者的基线和随访 CT 扫描进行了重新解读。基线 CT 扫描是从我们的 PACS(图片存档和通信系统)中的成像报告中选择的。随访解读由软件独立评估。我们根据 RECIST 1.1(实体瘤反应评估标准)对靶病灶总和和肿瘤反应进行了评估。结果 PACS 数据和成像软件在靶病灶总和和肿瘤反应评估方面没有显著差异。软件没有高估或低估病情。有三个病例存在明显偏差(进展与稳定)。其中两名患者的差异与非目标病变的反应评估有关。第三位患者的差异是由于与之前的 CT 扫描对比而非基线检查造成的。有 13% 的报告存在计算错误,28% 的病例是将检查结果与之前的 CT 扫描结果进行比较。最后,43% 的随访报告没有详细说明肿瘤反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信