Jeremy Louissaint, Beverly Kyalwazi, John Deng, Timothy P Hogan, Robert W Turer, Elliot B Tapper, David E Gerber, Bryan D Steitz, Sarah R Lieber, Amit G Singal
{"title":"Timing and Method of Patient-Provider Communication for Abnormal Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening Results in Cirrhosis.","authors":"Jeremy Louissaint, Beverly Kyalwazi, John Deng, Timothy P Hogan, Robert W Turer, Elliot B Tapper, David E Gerber, Bryan D Steitz, Sarah R Lieber, Amit G Singal","doi":"10.1200/CCI-24-00269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Patients with cirrhosis undergo frequent abdominal imaging including semiannual hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening, with results released immediately via the patient portal. We characterized time from patient review to patient-provider communication (PPC) for patients with abnormal liver imaging results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified patients with cirrhosis enrolled in the patient portal with a new abnormal liver lesion (LI-RADS, LR) on ambulatory liver ultrasound (US) or multiphasic computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging. Imaging findings were grouped into low-risk (US-2, LR-2), intermediate-risk (US-3, LR-3), and high-risk (LR-4, LR-5, LR-M, LR-TIV) results. We extracted three date-time events from the electronic health record, including result release to the patient, patient review of the result, and result-related PPC. We compared communication methods and the median time with PPC after patient review of results between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cohort included 133 patients (median age, 62 years, 56% male) with 34 (25.6%) low-risk, 61 (45.9%) intermediate-risk, and 38 (28.6%) high-risk results. PPC for high-risk results was predominantly via telephone calls (60.5%), whereas portal messages were most commonly used for low- and intermediate-risk results (61.8% and 45.9%, respectively; <i>P</i> < .001). For patients who reviewed their result on the portal, most (79.3%) reviewed the result before PPC, among whom the median time between review and PPC was 55.8 (IQR, 22.0-219.0), 167 (IQR, 42.7-324.0), and 47.3 (IQR, 25.8-78.8) hours for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk results, respectively (<i>P</i> = .02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Portal-based review of abnormal imaging results by patients before provider communication is common, including results concerning a new HCC diagnosis. Further studies are needed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes, such as psychological distress, associated with this method of disclosing cancer-related results.</p>","PeriodicalId":51626,"journal":{"name":"JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics","volume":"9 ","pages":"e2400269"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI-24-00269","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Patients with cirrhosis undergo frequent abdominal imaging including semiannual hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening, with results released immediately via the patient portal. We characterized time from patient review to patient-provider communication (PPC) for patients with abnormal liver imaging results.
Methods: We identified patients with cirrhosis enrolled in the patient portal with a new abnormal liver lesion (LI-RADS, LR) on ambulatory liver ultrasound (US) or multiphasic computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging. Imaging findings were grouped into low-risk (US-2, LR-2), intermediate-risk (US-3, LR-3), and high-risk (LR-4, LR-5, LR-M, LR-TIV) results. We extracted three date-time events from the electronic health record, including result release to the patient, patient review of the result, and result-related PPC. We compared communication methods and the median time with PPC after patient review of results between groups.
Results: The cohort included 133 patients (median age, 62 years, 56% male) with 34 (25.6%) low-risk, 61 (45.9%) intermediate-risk, and 38 (28.6%) high-risk results. PPC for high-risk results was predominantly via telephone calls (60.5%), whereas portal messages were most commonly used for low- and intermediate-risk results (61.8% and 45.9%, respectively; P < .001). For patients who reviewed their result on the portal, most (79.3%) reviewed the result before PPC, among whom the median time between review and PPC was 55.8 (IQR, 22.0-219.0), 167 (IQR, 42.7-324.0), and 47.3 (IQR, 25.8-78.8) hours for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk results, respectively (P = .02).
Conclusion: Portal-based review of abnormal imaging results by patients before provider communication is common, including results concerning a new HCC diagnosis. Further studies are needed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes, such as psychological distress, associated with this method of disclosing cancer-related results.