Search

The evaluation of tumor follow-up according to RECIST 1.1 has become essential in clinical practice given its role in therapeutic decision making. At the same time, radiologists are facing an increase in activity while facing a shortage. Radiographic technologists could contribute to the follow-up of these measures, but no studies have evaluated their ability to perform them. Ninety breast cancer patients were performed three CT follow-ups between September 2017 and August 2021. 270 follow-up treatment CT scans were analyzed including 445 target lesions. The rate of agreement of classifications RECIST 1.1 between five technologists and radiologists yielded moderate (k value between 0.47 and 0.52) and substantial (k value = 0.62 and k = 0.67) agreement values. 112 CT were classified as progressive disease (PD) by the radiologists, and 414 new lesions were identified. The analysis showed a percentage of strict agreement of progressive disease classification between reader-technologists and radiologists ranging from substantial to almost perfect agreement (range 73–97%). Analysis of intra-observer agreement was strong at almost perfect (k > 0.78) for 3 technologists. These results are encouraging regarding the ability of selected technologists to perform measurements according to RECIST 1.1 criteria by CT scan with good identification of disease progression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In the clinical workflow of radiology services, a critical connection exists between technologists and radiologists, yet there is often limited communication between this key link in the chain of patient imaging. Our aim was to quantify and detail the communication between CT technologists and radiologists in our tertiary oncology practice. Methods: Using the note function in our EMR, as standard operating procedure, CT technologists are instructed to place pertinent notes for the radiologist relevant to any portion of the patient encounter. Note categories pertain to quality and/or safety: patient limitations (e.g., patient unable to raise arm), protocol confirmation (e.g., rectal contrast given), critical finding communication, scan range considerations, IV issues, reduction in eGFR, oral contrast issues, allergy information, general feedback, equipment malfunction, and radiologist approval information. The percentage of notes within each category were recorded upon review of contiguous abdominal CT scans in July 2018 with the primary outcome measure of overall note volume compared to baseline in July 2016 after which time technologists were educated on the importance of notes and were requested to increase use of this tool. Notes were regularly reviewed to identify practice improvement opportunities. Results: Compared to baseline 2 years earlier (8860 CT scans, 812 technologist notes), there was a 32% increase in technologist note volume (10,948 CT scans, 1330 technologist notes), representing an increase of notes from 9.2% of exams to 12.1% of exams (p <.001) and there were 14 related practice improvements. Conclusion: After communicating the importance of CT technologist notes and requesting increased notation frequency, technologist note volume significantly increased and 14 specific case examples of related practice improvement demonstrate the electronic medical record note function to be a robust tool in the management of patient imaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]