Augmented Radiologist Workflow Improves Report Value and Saves Time: A Potential Model for Implementation of Artificial Intelligence.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES Our primary aim was to improve radiology reports by increasing concordance of target lesion measurements with oncology records using radiology preprocessors (RP). Faster notification of incidental actionable findings to referring clinicians and clinical radiologist exam interpretation time savings with RPs quantifying tumor burden were also assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this prospective quality improvement initiative, RPs annotated lesions before radiologist interpretation of CT exams. Clinical radiologists then hyperlinked approved measurements into interactive reports during interpretations. RPs evaluated concordance with our tumor measurement radiologist, the determinant of tumor burden. Actionable finding detection and notification times were also deduced. Clinical radiologist interpretation times were calculated from established average CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis interpretation times. RESULTS RPs assessed 1287 body CT exams with 812 follow-up CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis studies; 95 (11.7%) of which had 241 verified target lesions. There was improved concordance (67.8% vs. 22.5%) of target lesion measurements. RPs detected 93.1% incidental actionable findings with faster clinician notification by a median time of 1 hour (range: 15 minutes-16 hours). Radiologist exam interpretation times decreased by 37%. CONCLUSIONS This workflow resulted in three-fold improved target lesion measurement concordance with oncology records, earlier detection and faster notification of incidental actionable findings to referring clinicians, and decreased exam interpretation times for clinical radiologists. These findings demonstrate potential roles for automation (such as AI) to improve report value, worklist prioritization, and patient care.

[1]  Tony Wallace,et al.  RAs increase productivity. , 2008, Radiologic technology.

[2]  Les R Folio,et al.  Consistency and efficiency of CT analysis of metastatic disease: semiautomated lesion management application within a PACS. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  J. Patrie,et al.  Radiologist Adoption of Interactive Multimedia Reporting Technology. , 2019, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[4]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Using computer-aided detection in mammography as a decision support , 2010, European Radiology.

[5]  H. Hricak,et al.  Intra- and interobserver variability in CT measurements in oncology. , 2013, Radiology.

[6]  C. Langlotz,et al.  A Roadmap for Foundational Research on Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging: From the 2018 NIH/RSNA/ACR/The Academy Workshop. , 2019, Radiology.

[7]  Tracy A Jaffe,et al.  Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: Part 1, radiology practice patterns at major U.S. cancer centers. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  Vahid Yaghmai,et al.  Radiologic assessment of response to therapy: comparison of RECIST Versions 1.1 and 1.0. , 2011, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[9]  Daniel L. Rubin,et al.  Tool Support to Enable Evaluation of the Clinical Response to Treatment , 2008, AMIA.

[10]  Laura B. Machado,et al.  Radiology Reports With Hyperlinks Improve Target Lesion Selection and Measurement Concordance in Cancer Trials. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  Charles E Kahn,et al.  Actionable findings and the role of IT support: report of the ACR Actionable Reporting Work Group. , 2014, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[12]  Richard D. White,et al.  Automated Critical Test Findings Identification and Online Notification System Using Artificial Intelligence in Imaging. , 2017, Radiology.

[13]  Arijitt Borthakur,et al.  Improving Performance by Using a Radiology Extender. , 2018, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[14]  S Saini,et al.  Tumour size measurement in an oncology clinical trial: comparison between off-site and on-site measurements. , 2003, Clinical radiology.

[15]  A. Padhani,et al.  The RECIST criteria: implications for diagnostic radiologists , 2001 .

[16]  Le Lu,et al.  DeepLesion: automated mining of large-scale lesion annotations and universal lesion detection with deep learning , 2018, Journal of medical imaging.

[17]  Tracy A Jaffe,et al.  Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: Part 2, oncologists' opinions and expectations at major U.S. cancer centers. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  Bruce R. Rosen,et al.  Distributed deep learning networks among institutions for medical imaging , 2018, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[19]  S. Hussain,et al.  Communicating critical results in radiology. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[20]  Alexander K. Goel,et al.  Unlocking Radiology Reporting Data: an Implementation of Synoptic Radiology Reporting in Low-Dose CT Cancer Screening , 2019, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[21]  B. van Ginneken,et al.  Computer Vision Tool and Technician as First Reader of Lung Cancer Screening CT Scans , 2016, Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

[22]  Laura B. Machado,et al.  Multimedia-enhanced Radiology Reports: Concept, Components, and Challenges. , 2018, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[23]  L. Schwartz,et al.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[24]  Les R Folio,et al.  Automated registration, segmentation, and measurement of metastatic melanoma tumors in serial CT scans. , 2013, Academic radiology.