ArticleInsights into imaging2020
Improving radiologic communication in oncology: a single-centre experience with structured reporting for cancer patients.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multidisciplinary attitudes towards LLM-structured oncologic CT reports: a prospective fixed-sequence questionnaire study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
- Maintaining the balance: wellbeing strategies for abdominal radiologists.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Critical dialogue: how imaging evaluates and guides pelvic exenteration surgery-a multidisciplinary perspective.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Contextual structured annotations on PACS: a futuristic vision for reporting routine oncologic imaging studies and its potential to transform clinical work and research.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Use and Perceptions of Oncology CT Structured Reports in Australia and New Zealand.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Durvalumab Plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Patients with Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: An Exploratory Analysis of Real-World Data.Targeted oncology · 2024Article
- A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- Vascular pathology in patients with alveolar echinococcosis: framework for assessment and clinical management - a retrospective case series.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Deep Learning-based Assessment of Oncologic Outcomes from Natural Language Processing of Structured Radiology Reports.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2022Article
- Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System (MY-RADS): strategies for practice implementation.Skeletal radiology · 2022Review
- T-staging pulmonary oncology from radiological reports using natural language processing: translating into a multi-language setting.Insights into imaging · 2021Article
- Structured Reporting of Computed Tomography in the Staging of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Delphi Consensus Proposal.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Article
- The LELEX initiative to enhance cancer imaging communication: development of a consensus-based structured reporting template and lexicon for general oncologic imaging.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOur aim was to develop a structured reporting concept (structured oncology report, SOR) for general follow-up assessment of cancer patients in clinical routine. Furthermore, we analysed the report quality of SOR compared to conventional reports (CR) as assessed by referring oncologists.
methodsSOR was designed to provide standardised layout, tabulated tumour burden documentation and standardised conclusion using uniform terminology. A software application for reporting was programmed to ensure consistency of layout and vocabulary and to facilitate utilisation of SOR. Report quality was analysed for 25 SOR and 25 CR retrospectively by 6 medical oncologists using a 7-point scale (score 1 representing the best score) for 6 questionnaire items addressing different elements of report quality and overall satisfaction. A score of ≤ 3 was defined as a positive rating.
resultsIn the first year after full implementation, 7471 imaging examinations were reported using SOR. The proportion of SOR in relation to all oncology reports increased from 49 to 95% within a few months. Report quality scores were better for SOR for each questionnaire item (p < 0.001 each). Averaged over all questionnaire item scores were 1.98 ± 1.22 for SOR and 3.05 ± 1.93 for CR (p < 0.001). The overall satisfaction score was 2.15 ± 1.32 for SOR and 3.39 ± 2.08 for CR (p < 0.001). The proportion of positive ratings was higher for SOR (89% versus 67%; p < 0.001).
conclusionsDepartment-wide structured reporting for follow-up imaging performed for assessment of anticancer treatment efficacy is feasible using a dedicated software application. Satisfaction of referring oncologist with report quality is superior for structured reports.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.