Laura Tordjman, Haleh Amirian, Alexandra Alvarez, Sara Shir, Julieta Aristizabal, Patricia Castillo, Prasoon Mohan, Stephanie Delgado, Francesco Alessandrino
{"title":"Do MRI structured reports with FIGO classifications of leiomyomas contain adequate information for clinical decision making?","authors":"Laura Tordjman, Haleh Amirian, Alexandra Alvarez, Sara Shir, Julieta Aristizabal, Patricia Castillo, Prasoon Mohan, Stephanie Delgado, Francesco Alessandrino","doi":"10.1002/ijgo.70163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate if structured reports (SR) of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans using the PALM-COEIN FIGO (the International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics) uterine leiomyomas classification (SR-FIGO) contain adequate information for clinical decision making compared with narrative reports (NR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three reporting templates for pelvic MRI scans were compared: NR, SR without the PALM-COEIN FIGO classification of leiomyomas, and SR-FIGO, for presence of 19 key-features (KF) deemed relevant for leiomyoma management. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate KF distribution across the report types. One gynecologist and one gynecologist-in-training evaluated the reports and MRI scans to assess the presence of sufficient information to decide on: (1) treatment type (observation/medical treatment/surgery/uterine artery embolization); (2) surgical approach (hysteroscopic/laparoscopic/robotic/open); (3) surgery type (myomectomy/hysterectomy); (4) necessity to review MRI scans; and (5) time spent reviewing MRI scans. The responses of the gynecologist and gynecologist-in-training to points 1 to 5 among report types were compared using χ<sup>2</sup> test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty NR, 20 SR, and 20 SR-FIGO were reviewed. The number of KF was significantly different among reports (P < 0.001): SR-FIGO had the highest number of KF, followed by SR, and NR. In pairwise comparison, significant differences were observed between NR and SR (P = 0.001) and between NR and SR-FIGO (P = 0.001), but not between SR and SR-FIGO (P = 0.063). There were significant differences in answers to question 1 between the gynecologist and gynecologist-in-training for SR (P = 0.007) and SR-FIGO (P = 0.024), with the gynecologist deeming SR and SR-FIGO to provide enough information for treatment decisions more commonly than the gynecologist-in-training.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although this investigation revealed that SR offers a greater wealth of information in contrast to NR, additional investigation is required to ascertain whether the integration of the PALM-COEIN FIGO classification in SR enhances the clinical decision making capacity of gynecologists.</p>","PeriodicalId":14164,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.70163","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate if structured reports (SR) of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans using the PALM-COEIN FIGO (the International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics) uterine leiomyomas classification (SR-FIGO) contain adequate information for clinical decision making compared with narrative reports (NR).
Methods: Three reporting templates for pelvic MRI scans were compared: NR, SR without the PALM-COEIN FIGO classification of leiomyomas, and SR-FIGO, for presence of 19 key-features (KF) deemed relevant for leiomyoma management. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate KF distribution across the report types. One gynecologist and one gynecologist-in-training evaluated the reports and MRI scans to assess the presence of sufficient information to decide on: (1) treatment type (observation/medical treatment/surgery/uterine artery embolization); (2) surgical approach (hysteroscopic/laparoscopic/robotic/open); (3) surgery type (myomectomy/hysterectomy); (4) necessity to review MRI scans; and (5) time spent reviewing MRI scans. The responses of the gynecologist and gynecologist-in-training to points 1 to 5 among report types were compared using χ2 test.
Results: Twenty NR, 20 SR, and 20 SR-FIGO were reviewed. The number of KF was significantly different among reports (P < 0.001): SR-FIGO had the highest number of KF, followed by SR, and NR. In pairwise comparison, significant differences were observed between NR and SR (P = 0.001) and between NR and SR-FIGO (P = 0.001), but not between SR and SR-FIGO (P = 0.063). There were significant differences in answers to question 1 between the gynecologist and gynecologist-in-training for SR (P = 0.007) and SR-FIGO (P = 0.024), with the gynecologist deeming SR and SR-FIGO to provide enough information for treatment decisions more commonly than the gynecologist-in-training.
Conclusion: Although this investigation revealed that SR offers a greater wealth of information in contrast to NR, additional investigation is required to ascertain whether the integration of the PALM-COEIN FIGO classification in SR enhances the clinical decision making capacity of gynecologists.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics publishes articles on all aspects of basic and clinical research in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology and related subjects, with emphasis on matters of worldwide interest.