Looking for appropriateness in follow-up CT of oncologic patients: results from a cross-sectional study

The objective of this study was to assess the inappropriateness rate of oncological follow-up CT examinations. Out of 7.000 oncology patients referred for follow-up CT examinations between March and October 2022, a random sample of 10% was included. Radiology residents assessed the appropriateness u...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of radiology 2023-10, Vol.167, p.111080-111080, Article 111080
Hauptverfasser: Lencioni, Riccardo, Claudio Fanni, Salvatore, Morganti, Riccardo, Febi, Maria, Ambrosini, Ilaria, De Gori, Carmelo, Aida D'Amore, Caterina, Bruni, Luciana, D'Agostino, Giulia, Milazzo, Alessio, Guerri, Gianluca, Coppola, Marzia, Letizia Mazzeo, Maria, Cioni, Dania, Neri, Emanuele
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 111080
container_issue
container_start_page 111080
container_title European journal of radiology
container_volume 167
creator Lencioni, Riccardo
Claudio Fanni, Salvatore
Morganti, Riccardo
Febi, Maria
Ambrosini, Ilaria
De Gori, Carmelo
Aida D'Amore, Caterina
Bruni, Luciana
D'Agostino, Giulia
Milazzo, Alessio
Guerri, Gianluca
Coppola, Marzia
Letizia Mazzeo, Maria
Cioni, Dania
Neri, Emanuele
description The objective of this study was to assess the inappropriateness rate of oncological follow-up CT examinations. Out of 7.000 oncology patients referred for follow-up CT examinations between March and October 2022, a random sample of 10% was included. Radiology residents assessed the appropriateness using the Italian Society of Medical Oncology (AIOM) guidelines, supervised by senior radiologists. Association between inappropriateness and clinical variables was investigated and variables influencing inappropriateness were analyzed through a binary logistic regression. Three-hundred-eighty-eight examinations (56.1%) were consistent with AIOM guidelines. An additional 100 (14.5 %) examinations did not follow the recommended schedule but were nevertheless considered appropriate because of suspected recurrence/progression (10.7%) or adverse event requiring imaging assessment (3.8%). Two-hundred-four (29.4%) examinations were rated as inappropriate. Inappropriateness causes were as follows: CT not included in the relevant guideline (n=47); CT extended to additional anatomical regions (n=59); CT requested at a shorter time-interval (n=98). No statistically significant difference was found in age, sex, scan region, and primary cancer between appropriate and inappropriate examinations. The only variable significantly associated with inappropriateness was being referred by a specific hospital unit named “unit 2” in the study (p = 0.009), which was demonstrated to be the only appropriateness independent predictor (OR 1.952). This study shows that majority of oncological patients referred for follow-up CT follows standard guidelines. However, a non-negligible proportion was rated as inappropriate, mainly due to the shorter time-interval. No clinical variable was associated with inappropriateness, except for referral by a specific hospital unit.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.111080
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2863306277</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0720048X23003947</els_id><sourcerecordid>2863306277</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c381t-143034db142ef534b48c1fcddb0081aae9d1875627d86192fdc197cbb617dc513</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMouK7-Ai85emnNJG3TCh5k8QsWvKzgLaRJuqR2m5q0yv57s1vPngaG9x3meRC6BpICgeK2TU3rpU4poSwFAFKSE7SAktOEc8pP0YJwShKSlR_n6CKElhCSZxVdoO3auU_bb3HjPJbD4N3grRxNb0LAto_rrnM_yTTg1Qa7Brteuc5trcKDHK3px3CHvQlTNwbceLfDEivvQkiCUaN1vexwGCe9v0RnjeyCufqbS_T-9LhZvSTrt-fX1cM6UayEMYGMEZbpGjJqmpxldVYqaJTWNSElSGkqHanygnJdFlDRRiuouKrrArhWObAlupnvRpKvyYRR7GxQputkb9wUBC0Lxkjs8xhlc_T4sDeNiOg76fcCiDhoFa04ahUHrWLWGlv3c8tEim9rvAgqelBGWx-RhXb23_4vtF2C8g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2863306277</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Looking for appropriateness in follow-up CT of oncologic patients: results from a cross-sectional study</title><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Lencioni, Riccardo ; Claudio Fanni, Salvatore ; Morganti, Riccardo ; Febi, Maria ; Ambrosini, Ilaria ; De Gori, Carmelo ; Aida D'Amore, Caterina ; Bruni, Luciana ; D'Agostino, Giulia ; Milazzo, Alessio ; Guerri, Gianluca ; Coppola, Marzia ; Letizia Mazzeo, Maria ; Cioni, Dania ; Neri, Emanuele</creator><creatorcontrib>Lencioni, Riccardo ; Claudio Fanni, Salvatore ; Morganti, Riccardo ; Febi, Maria ; Ambrosini, Ilaria ; De Gori, Carmelo ; Aida D'Amore, Caterina ; Bruni, Luciana ; D'Agostino, Giulia ; Milazzo, Alessio ; Guerri, Gianluca ; Coppola, Marzia ; Letizia Mazzeo, Maria ; Cioni, Dania ; Neri, Emanuele</creatorcontrib><description>The objective of this study was to assess the inappropriateness rate of oncological follow-up CT examinations. Out of 7.000 oncology patients referred for follow-up CT examinations between March and October 2022, a random sample of 10% was included. Radiology residents assessed the appropriateness using the Italian Society of Medical Oncology (AIOM) guidelines, supervised by senior radiologists. Association between inappropriateness and clinical variables was investigated and variables influencing inappropriateness were analyzed through a binary logistic regression. Three-hundred-eighty-eight examinations (56.1%) were consistent with AIOM guidelines. An additional 100 (14.5 %) examinations did not follow the recommended schedule but were nevertheless considered appropriate because of suspected recurrence/progression (10.7%) or adverse event requiring imaging assessment (3.8%). Two-hundred-four (29.4%) examinations were rated as inappropriate. Inappropriateness causes were as follows: CT not included in the relevant guideline (n=47); CT extended to additional anatomical regions (n=59); CT requested at a shorter time-interval (n=98). No statistically significant difference was found in age, sex, scan region, and primary cancer between appropriate and inappropriate examinations. The only variable significantly associated with inappropriateness was being referred by a specific hospital unit named “unit 2” in the study (p = 0.009), which was demonstrated to be the only appropriateness independent predictor (OR 1.952). This study shows that majority of oncological patients referred for follow-up CT follows standard guidelines. However, a non-negligible proportion was rated as inappropriate, mainly due to the shorter time-interval. No clinical variable was associated with inappropriateness, except for referral by a specific hospital unit.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0720-048X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7727</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.111080</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Appropriateness ; Computed Tomography ; Follow-up ; Guidelines ; Oncology</subject><ispartof>European journal of radiology, 2023-10, Vol.167, p.111080-111080, Article 111080</ispartof><rights>2023</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c381t-143034db142ef534b48c1fcddb0081aae9d1875627d86192fdc197cbb617dc513</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c381t-143034db142ef534b48c1fcddb0081aae9d1875627d86192fdc197cbb617dc513</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lencioni, Riccardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Claudio Fanni, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morganti, Riccardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Febi, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ambrosini, Ilaria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Gori, Carmelo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aida D'Amore, Caterina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruni, Luciana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'Agostino, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milazzo, Alessio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guerri, Gianluca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coppola, Marzia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Letizia Mazzeo, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cioni, Dania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neri, Emanuele</creatorcontrib><title>Looking for appropriateness in follow-up CT of oncologic patients: results from a cross-sectional study</title><title>European journal of radiology</title><description>The objective of this study was to assess the inappropriateness rate of oncological follow-up CT examinations. Out of 7.000 oncology patients referred for follow-up CT examinations between March and October 2022, a random sample of 10% was included. Radiology residents assessed the appropriateness using the Italian Society of Medical Oncology (AIOM) guidelines, supervised by senior radiologists. Association between inappropriateness and clinical variables was investigated and variables influencing inappropriateness were analyzed through a binary logistic regression. Three-hundred-eighty-eight examinations (56.1%) were consistent with AIOM guidelines. An additional 100 (14.5 %) examinations did not follow the recommended schedule but were nevertheless considered appropriate because of suspected recurrence/progression (10.7%) or adverse event requiring imaging assessment (3.8%). Two-hundred-four (29.4%) examinations were rated as inappropriate. Inappropriateness causes were as follows: CT not included in the relevant guideline (n=47); CT extended to additional anatomical regions (n=59); CT requested at a shorter time-interval (n=98). No statistically significant difference was found in age, sex, scan region, and primary cancer between appropriate and inappropriate examinations. The only variable significantly associated with inappropriateness was being referred by a specific hospital unit named “unit 2” in the study (p = 0.009), which was demonstrated to be the only appropriateness independent predictor (OR 1.952). This study shows that majority of oncological patients referred for follow-up CT follows standard guidelines. However, a non-negligible proportion was rated as inappropriate, mainly due to the shorter time-interval. No clinical variable was associated with inappropriateness, except for referral by a specific hospital unit.</description><subject>Appropriateness</subject><subject>Computed Tomography</subject><subject>Follow-up</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><issn>0720-048X</issn><issn>1872-7727</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMouK7-Ai85emnNJG3TCh5k8QsWvKzgLaRJuqR2m5q0yv57s1vPngaG9x3meRC6BpICgeK2TU3rpU4poSwFAFKSE7SAktOEc8pP0YJwShKSlR_n6CKElhCSZxVdoO3auU_bb3HjPJbD4N3grRxNb0LAto_rrnM_yTTg1Qa7Brteuc5trcKDHK3px3CHvQlTNwbceLfDEivvQkiCUaN1vexwGCe9v0RnjeyCufqbS_T-9LhZvSTrt-fX1cM6UayEMYGMEZbpGjJqmpxldVYqaJTWNSElSGkqHanygnJdFlDRRiuouKrrArhWObAlupnvRpKvyYRR7GxQputkb9wUBC0Lxkjs8xhlc_T4sDeNiOg76fcCiDhoFa04ahUHrWLWGlv3c8tEim9rvAgqelBGWx-RhXb23_4vtF2C8g</recordid><startdate>202310</startdate><enddate>202310</enddate><creator>Lencioni, Riccardo</creator><creator>Claudio Fanni, Salvatore</creator><creator>Morganti, Riccardo</creator><creator>Febi, Maria</creator><creator>Ambrosini, Ilaria</creator><creator>De Gori, Carmelo</creator><creator>Aida D'Amore, Caterina</creator><creator>Bruni, Luciana</creator><creator>D'Agostino, Giulia</creator><creator>Milazzo, Alessio</creator><creator>Guerri, Gianluca</creator><creator>Coppola, Marzia</creator><creator>Letizia Mazzeo, Maria</creator><creator>Cioni, Dania</creator><creator>Neri, Emanuele</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202310</creationdate><title>Looking for appropriateness in follow-up CT of oncologic patients: results from a cross-sectional study</title><author>Lencioni, Riccardo ; Claudio Fanni, Salvatore ; Morganti, Riccardo ; Febi, Maria ; Ambrosini, Ilaria ; De Gori, Carmelo ; Aida D'Amore, Caterina ; Bruni, Luciana ; D'Agostino, Giulia ; Milazzo, Alessio ; Guerri, Gianluca ; Coppola, Marzia ; Letizia Mazzeo, Maria ; Cioni, Dania ; Neri, Emanuele</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c381t-143034db142ef534b48c1fcddb0081aae9d1875627d86192fdc197cbb617dc513</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Appropriateness</topic><topic>Computed Tomography</topic><topic>Follow-up</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lencioni, Riccardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Claudio Fanni, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morganti, Riccardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Febi, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ambrosini, Ilaria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Gori, Carmelo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aida D'Amore, Caterina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruni, Luciana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'Agostino, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milazzo, Alessio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guerri, Gianluca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coppola, Marzia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Letizia Mazzeo, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cioni, Dania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neri, Emanuele</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lencioni, Riccardo</au><au>Claudio Fanni, Salvatore</au><au>Morganti, Riccardo</au><au>Febi, Maria</au><au>Ambrosini, Ilaria</au><au>De Gori, Carmelo</au><au>Aida D'Amore, Caterina</au><au>Bruni, Luciana</au><au>D'Agostino, Giulia</au><au>Milazzo, Alessio</au><au>Guerri, Gianluca</au><au>Coppola, Marzia</au><au>Letizia Mazzeo, Maria</au><au>Cioni, Dania</au><au>Neri, Emanuele</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Looking for appropriateness in follow-up CT of oncologic patients: results from a cross-sectional study</atitle><jtitle>European journal of radiology</jtitle><date>2023-10</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>167</volume><spage>111080</spage><epage>111080</epage><pages>111080-111080</pages><artnum>111080</artnum><issn>0720-048X</issn><eissn>1872-7727</eissn><abstract>The objective of this study was to assess the inappropriateness rate of oncological follow-up CT examinations. Out of 7.000 oncology patients referred for follow-up CT examinations between March and October 2022, a random sample of 10% was included. Radiology residents assessed the appropriateness using the Italian Society of Medical Oncology (AIOM) guidelines, supervised by senior radiologists. Association between inappropriateness and clinical variables was investigated and variables influencing inappropriateness were analyzed through a binary logistic regression. Three-hundred-eighty-eight examinations (56.1%) were consistent with AIOM guidelines. An additional 100 (14.5 %) examinations did not follow the recommended schedule but were nevertheless considered appropriate because of suspected recurrence/progression (10.7%) or adverse event requiring imaging assessment (3.8%). Two-hundred-four (29.4%) examinations were rated as inappropriate. Inappropriateness causes were as follows: CT not included in the relevant guideline (n=47); CT extended to additional anatomical regions (n=59); CT requested at a shorter time-interval (n=98). No statistically significant difference was found in age, sex, scan region, and primary cancer between appropriate and inappropriate examinations. The only variable significantly associated with inappropriateness was being referred by a specific hospital unit named “unit 2” in the study (p = 0.009), which was demonstrated to be the only appropriateness independent predictor (OR 1.952). This study shows that majority of oncological patients referred for follow-up CT follows standard guidelines. However, a non-negligible proportion was rated as inappropriate, mainly due to the shorter time-interval. No clinical variable was associated with inappropriateness, except for referral by a specific hospital unit.</abstract><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.111080</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0720-048X
ispartof European journal of radiology, 2023-10, Vol.167, p.111080-111080, Article 111080
issn 0720-048X
1872-7727
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2863306277
source Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Appropriateness
Computed Tomography
Follow-up
Guidelines
Oncology
title Looking for appropriateness in follow-up CT of oncologic patients: results from a cross-sectional study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T18%3A17%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Looking%20for%20appropriateness%20in%20follow-up%20CT%20of%20oncologic%20patients:%20results%20from%20a%20cross-sectional%20study&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20radiology&rft.au=Lencioni,%20Riccardo&rft.date=2023-10&rft.volume=167&rft.spage=111080&rft.epage=111080&rft.pages=111080-111080&rft.artnum=111080&rft.issn=0720-048X&rft.eissn=1872-7727&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.111080&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2863306277%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2863306277&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0720048X23003947&rfr_iscdi=true