Communication in radiology: evaluation of terminology and TNM descriptor use at a cancer center

Abstract Objective: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the transmission of information from radiologists to physicians, focusing on the level of certainty and the use of imaging descriptors from the tumor–node–metastasis (TNM) staging system. Materials and Methods Radiologists (n = 56) and referring physicians (n = 50) participated in this questionnaire-based, single-center study, conducted between March 20, 2020, and January 21, 2021. Participants were presented with terms commonly used by the radiologists at the institution and were asked to order them hierarchically in terms of the level of certainty they communicate regarding a diagnosis, using a scale ranging from 1 (most contrary to) to 10 (most favoring). They then assessed TNM system descriptors and their interpretation. Student’s t-tests and the kappa statistic were used in order to compare the rankings of the terms of certainty. Items related to T and N staging were analyzed by Fisher’s exact test. The confdence level was set to 97% (p < 0.03). Results: Although overall agreement among the radiologists and referring physicians on term ranking was poor (kappa = 0.10–0.35), the mean and median values for the two groups were similar. Most of the radiologists and referring physicians (67% and 86%, respectively) approved of the proposal to establish a standard lexicon. Such a lexicon, based on the participant responses, was developed and graphically represented. Regarding the TNM system descriptors, there were significant differences between the two groups in the reporting of lymph node numbers, of features indicating capsular rupture, and of vessel wall irregularities, as well as in the preference for clear descriptions of vascular involvement. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that ineffective communication and differences in report interpretation between radiologists and referring physicians are still prevalent in the fields of radiology and oncology. Efforts to gain a better understanding of those impediments might improve the objectivity of reporting and the quality of care.