Pediatric radiology · 2025
Discrepancies between primary and secondary interpretations of pediatric nuclear medicine imaging examinations.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hoeksema Peter, Hayatghaibi Shireen, Sharp Susan E, Li Yinan, Anton Christopher G, Norris Robin E, Trout Andrew T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Requests for secondary interpretation of imaging examinations adds clinical work and generates additional charges.
OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of secondary interpretations of pediatric nuclear medicine examinations at a quaternary academic center.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this IRB approved study, we retrospectively reviewed nuclear medicine examinations submitted for secondary interpretation by a pediatric radiologist with a nuclear medicine focus at our institution between 08/2019 and 08/2024. A single reviewer compared the primary and secondary reports to identify discrepancies that would likely impact clinical management, and discrepancies were confirmed by additional reviewers. Pediatric hematology/oncology faculty (n=29) and fellows (n=18) at our institution were surveyed to understand requests for, and the impact of, secondary interpretations. Results are summarized with descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-eight examinations (median patient age=8 years) were included, 237 were 18F-FDG PET body scans, 97 were 123I-MIBG scans, and 24 were other examinations. Secondary interpretations yielded meaningful changes in 17% (60/358). Of these, 20% (12/60) changed from negative/normal to positive, 20% (12/60) changed from positive to negative/normal, and 57% (34/60) included additional positive findings/diagnoses. Sixteen survey responses (34%; n=16/47 response rate) were received, with providers indicating that secondary interpretations were clinically useful even when they agreed with the primary impression.
CONCLUSION: Secondary interpretation of pediatric nuclear medicine examinations by pediatric radiologists with nuclear medicine focus resulted in changes that have potential impact on clinical management in 17% of cases. Secondary interpretations completely changed the impression regarding the presence or absence of malignant disease in 40% of these cases. Referring providers identified benefit in secondary interpretations even when they confirmed the primary impression.
OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of secondary interpretations of pediatric nuclear medicine examinations at a quaternary academic center.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this IRB approved study, we retrospectively reviewed nuclear medicine examinations submitted for secondary interpretation by a pediatric radiologist with a nuclear medicine focus at our institution between 08/2019 and 08/2024. A single reviewer compared the primary and secondary reports to identify discrepancies that would likely impact clinical management, and discrepancies were confirmed by additional reviewers. Pediatric hematology/oncology faculty (n=29) and fellows (n=18) at our institution were surveyed to understand requests for, and the impact of, secondary interpretations. Results are summarized with descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-eight examinations (median patient age=8 years) were included, 237 were 18F-FDG PET body scans, 97 were 123I-MIBG scans, and 24 were other examinations. Secondary interpretations yielded meaningful changes in 17% (60/358). Of these, 20% (12/60) changed from negative/normal to positive, 20% (12/60) changed from positive to negative/normal, and 57% (34/60) included additional positive findings/diagnoses. Sixteen survey responses (34%; n=16/47 response rate) were received, with providers indicating that secondary interpretations were clinically useful even when they agreed with the primary impression.
CONCLUSION: Secondary interpretation of pediatric nuclear medicine examinations by pediatric radiologists with nuclear medicine focus resulted in changes that have potential impact on clinical management in 17% of cases. Secondary interpretations completely changed the impression regarding the presence or absence of malignant disease in 40% of these cases. Referring providers identified benefit in secondary interpretations even when they confirmed the primary impression.