Virtual Library

 x 
My Library Virtual Library FAQ

Start Your Search

A. Devaraj



Author of

  • +

    MS17 - Imaging Developments (ID 34)

    • Event: WCLC 2013
    • Type: Mini Symposia
    • Track: Imaging, Staging & Screening
    • Presentations: 1
    • +

      MS17.2 - Standardized Reporting; Guidelines for Imaging Protocols / Interpretation (ID 537)

      14:25 - 14:45  |  Author(s): A. Devaraj

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Abstract
      The radiology report forms an essential component of any radiological examination, and an accurate radiology report requires two key components: the detection of abnormalities (if any), and subsequently their interpretation. However, for radiology reports to be useful to the clinician and patient, a third crucial factor is successful communication. In the setting of lung cancer reporting, radiologists rely on their perceptive ability to detect nodules or masses, while interpretation requires knowledge and experience of the appearances, staging and behaviour of lung carcinomas. Improvements in both of the factors have been achieved by developments such as the use of computer aided detection software or maximum intensity projections (MIPs), for example, to detect lung cancer; and the use of internationally recognized documents such as the IASLC lung cancer staging classification which aids radiological interpretation. By comparison, the communication of the radiology report has changed little over the years, and it could be argued that efforts to improve lung cancer detection and staging are diminished without satisfactory communication. Standardized reporting (SR) has been advocated as a tool that can improve the communication of radiology reports, and which may also have benefits in the detection and interpretation of radiological abnormalities. This presentation will review the definitions of SR, and examine its purported benefits and disadvantages. Studies investigating the impact of SR will be reviewed. In particular, its relevance to lung cancer imaging will be highlighted. There is no single definition of what a standardized report should look like, but a key principle is that standardized reports (SRs) follow a pre-defined format. At the most basic level this includes the use of brief headings within a report, such as “clinical information” or “impression”, each of which contains free-text. At the other extreme is the mandatory use of a check-list of itemised headings, and the selection from a list of only pre-defined terms (using standardized language) within these headings, rather than free-text. Itemised headings in a CT structured report of a patient with lung cancer might include tumour morphology, tumour location, tri-dimensional measurements, presence or absence of invasion of structures such as pleura or chest wall, the presence or absence of enlarged lymph nodes recorded for all of the nodal stations, and the presence or absence of metastatic disease in each of the body organs. The hypothesized advantages of SR is that it produces: i) reports that are more accurate, ii) reports that are easier to read and understand, and iii) reports from which it is straightforward to retrieve data for research purposes. It has also been suggested that SRs allow radiologists to better convey uncertainties and likelihoods to clinicians. This is standard practice in mammographic reporting, where abnormalities are given a score between 1(negative) and 5 (highly suggestive of malignancy) and could in theory be extrapolated to the description of lung nodules in a clinical or lung cancer screening setting. The main disadvantages of SR that are put forward include its negative impact on workflow and the interpretation process. Additionally, it is suggested that, in fact, free text can better capture the uncertainties within a radiological examination, as often findings cannot be simply categorized into negative or positive. Unlike standardized reporting, the subject of standardized protocols in lung cancer imaging is perhaps less controversial, but no less important. The protocols used for the imaging of lung cancer can have a significant impact on the accurate staging and treatment planning of lung cancer. Furthermore, the successful implementation of future lung cancer screening programmes will require consistent adherence to low-dose CT acquisition protocols. In the staging of patients with lung cancer, protocols such as the routine reconstruction of multi-planar reformats to better identify tumour invasion are becoming widely adopted. Less agreement exists on imaging pathways. For example, the role of routine brain MRI in lung cancer staging or the possible use of contrast-enhanced PET/CT as a “one-stop shop”.

      Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.

  • +

    P1.20 - Poster Session 1 - Early Detection and Screening (ID 172)

    • Event: WCLC 2013
    • Type: Poster Session
    • Track: Imaging, Staging & Screening
    • Presentations: 1
    • +

      P1.20-004 - UK lung Cancer Screening trial (UKLS): Base line data (ID 1796)

      09:30 - 09:30  |  Author(s): A. Devaraj

      • Abstract

      Background
      Lung Cancer causes over 35,000 UK deaths per year: early detection by CT screening has been shown to reduce mortality in the USA by 20%.

      Methods
      UKLS is a pilot randomised controlled trial, screening individuals at a high risk of developing lung cancer (>5% over 5yrs) with low-dose CT. UKLS is population-based, approaching people of 50-75yrs identified through local primary care records and using a validated lung cancer risk prediction model to identify high risk individuals from the target group (Raji Annals of Int. Med 2012). We report observations made from the initial recruitment to the trial. 250,000 individuals were approached in Liverpool and Cambridgeshire, 30% responded positively to the first questionnaire. 4000 individuals were recruited and randomised to receive either a low-dose CT scan or usual care. All CTs were double read according to UKLS protocol. Nodules were reported as category 1, 2, 3 or 4 depending on size and volume (Baldwin et al. Thorax 2011). Participants with category 4 nodules (>500mm3) were referred to the lung cancer multi-disciplinary team (MDT) for further workup. Individuals with a category 3 nodule (50-500 mm3) underwent a repeat CT within 3 months, whereas category 2 nodules (15-50mm3) were followed up at 12 months. The trial is currently in follow-up and some participants are still in the 3 and 12 month phases.

      Results
      1991 high risk UKLS participants underwent baseline CT by June 2013. 1044/1991(52.4%) individuals had nodules requiring further imaging or work-up. 79/1991 (4.0%) had nodules which required referral to the MDT clinics at the pilot sites for further workup. At this time 31/1991(1.6%) had a prevalent lung cancer. 27/31 lung cancers (87.1%) were non-small cell lung cancer and 25/31 lung cancers (80.6%) were Stage I or II (based on pathological staging or clinical staging where the pathology staging was not available).

      Conclusion
      UKLS has already demonstrated 1.6% prevalence, utilising the LLP risk prediction model to identify high risk individuals, which compares favourably with the NELSON and other European trials. The Pilot UKLS is due to provide an interim report in 2014.