Search

Rationale and Objectives: The current paradigm of cancer diagnosis involves uncoordinated communication of findings from radiology and pathology to downstream physicians. Discordance between these findings can require additional time from downstream users to resolve, or given incorrect resolution, may adversely impact treatment decisions. To mitigate this problem, we developed a webbased system, called RadPath, for correlating and integrating radiology and pathology reporting. Materials and Methods: RadPath includes interfaces to our institution’s clinical information systems, which are used to retrieve reports, images, and test results that are structured into an interactive compendium for a diagnostic patient case. The system includes an editing interface for physicians, allowing for the inclusion of additional clinical data, as well as the ability to retrospectively correlate and contextualize imaging findings following pathology diagnosis. Results: During pilot deployment and testing over the course of 1 year, physicians at our institution have completed 60 RadPath cases, requiring an average of 128 seconds from a radiologist and an average of 93 seconds from a pathologist per case. Several technical and workflow challenges were encountered during development, including interfacing with diverse clinical information systems, automatically structuring report contents, and determining the appropriate physicians to create RadPath summaries. Reaction to RadPath has been positive, with users valuing the system’s ability to consolidate diagnostic information. Conclusions: With the increasing complexity of medicine and the movement toward team-based disease management, there is a need for improved clinical communication and information exchange. RadPath provides a platform for generating coherent and correlated diagnostic summaries in cancer diagnosis with minimal additional effort from physicians.

Rationale and Objectives The purpose of this study was to quantify the degree of imaging–histologic discordance in a cohort of patients undergoing computed tomography (CT)–guided lung biopsy for focal lung disease. Materials and Methods A retrospective review was performed of 186 patients who underwent percutaneous lung biopsy of a parenchymal lesion at our institution between January and December 2009. Diagnostic radiology reports of CT or positron emission tomography–CTs performed before biopsy were used to classify the lesion as malignant or benign by five readers. Pathology reports of the biopsied lesions were classified by three readers. Inter-reader agreement and imaging–histologic concordance were quantified using kappa statistics. Discordant benign cases were then revisited to determine downstream effects. Results Inter-reader agreement on report content was substantial or almost perfect with kappas >0.783. Kappas for concordance were as follows: malignant (0.448), primary lung cancer (0.517), metastatic disease to lung (0.449), benign (0.510), and overall agreement (0.381). Of the twelve discordant benign cases that were revisited, four were found to be false negatives, resulting in a delay in diagnosis. Conclusions Our study of imaging–histologic discordance in percutaneous biopsy of lung lesions supports the need for imaging report standardization and improved integration and communication between the fields of radiology and pathology.

The current paradigm of cancer diagnosis involves uncoordinated communication of findings from radiology and pathology to downstream physicians. Discordance between these findings can require additional time from downstream users to resolve, or given incorrect resolution, may adversely impact treatment decisions. To mitigate this problem, we developed a web-based system, called RadPath, for correlating and integrating radiology and pathology reporting.RadPath includes interfaces to our institution's clinical information systems, which are used to retrieve reports, images, and test results that are structured into an interactive compendium for a diagnostic patient case. The system includes an editing interface for physicians, allowing for the inclusion of additional clinical data, as well as the ability to retrospectively correlate and contextualize imaging findings following pathology diagnosis.During pilot deployment and testing over the course of 1 year, physicians at our institution have completed 60 RadPath cases, requiring an average of 128 seconds from a radiologist and an average of 93 seconds from a pathologist per case. Several technical and workflow challenges were encountered during development, including interfacing with diverse clinical information systems, automatically structuring report contents, and determining the appropriate physicians to create RadPath summaries. Reaction to RadPath has been positive, with users valuing the system's ability to consolidate diagnostic information.With the increasing complexity of medicine and the movement toward team-based disease management, there is a need for improved clinical communication and information exchange. RadPath provides a platform for generating coherent and correlated diagnostic summaries in cancer diagnosis with minimal additional effort from physicians.