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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of radiology 2023-10, Vol.167, p.111080-111080, Article 111080 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
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 |