Cross-insitutional standardization of imaging protocols – A pilot study within the scope of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Lower Saxony

Abstract

Purpose Cross-institutional establishment of standardized protocols for CT and MR imaging of primary liver and pancreas tumors in an oncological center.

Materials and Methods This prospective dual-institution study was approved by the local IRBs. Minimum requirements (phases, sequences, slice thickness) for imaging of primary liver and pancreas tumors were defined and implemented at both sites. Between 06/19 and 08/19 in-house examinations were evaluated in terms of compliance with defined protocols and image quality. In addition, extramural examinations that were demonstrated at interdisciplinary tumor board meetings in the same study period were reviewed. Results were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics, and differences between centers, modalities and organs assessed (Fisher-exact Test, p < 0.05 deemed significant).

Results 480 data sets (397 internal, 83 extramural) were included in this study and analyzed. Overall protocol compliance for in-house examinations was 93.5 % (371/397 datasets), without statistical significant difference between the two institutions (p = 0.0615). External studies met minimum requirements in 48.2 % (40/83 datasets). Regarding in-house imaging, significant differences were observed between CT of the liver and the pancreas (p < 0.05) and between CT and MRI of the pancreas (p < 0.05).

Conclusion As demonstrated in this pilot project, cross-institutional establishment of standardized imaging protocols is feasible with a compliance rate of more than 90 %. Standardized imaging protocols may serve as a quality indicator in oncological imaging, and over time, improve cross-institutional patient care.

Key points: 

• Cross-institutional establishment of standardized imaging protocols is feasible with high compliance.

• Standards may serve as a quality indicator in oncological imaging.

• In perspective, cross-institutional patient care may be improved.

Citation Format

• Römermann I, Al-Bourini O, Seif Amir Hosseini A et al. Cross-insitutional standardization of imaging protocols – A pilot study within the scope of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Lower Saxony. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 410 – 416

Key words

liver - pancreas - standard operating procedures - SOP - CT - MRI

Publication History

Received: 14 April 2020

Accepted: 03 August 2020

Article published online:
03 September 2020

• References

• 1 Zentrum für Krebsregisterdaten. https://www.krebsdaten.de/Krebs/DE/Datenbankabfrage/datenbankabfrage_stufe1_node.html ; Zugriff am 03.03.2020
• 2 Comprehensive Cancer Center Niedersachsen. https://www.mhh.de/claudia-von-schilling-zentrum-ccc-hannover ; Zugriff am 03.03.2020
• 3 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): Diagnostik und Therapie des hepatozellulären Karzinoms, Langversion 1.0, AWMF Registrierungsnummer: 032-053OL. https://leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/Leitlinien.7.0html
• 4 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): S3-Leitlinie Exokrines Pankreaskarzinom, Kurzversion 1.0, AWMF Registrierungsnummer: 032-010OL. https://leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/Leitlinien.7.0html
• 5 Schreyer AG, Wessling J, Grenacher L. Versorgungsrealität vs. leitliniengerechte Bildgebung in der Abdominalradiologie im deutschsprachigen Raum: Ergebnisse einer Online-Umfrage. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2016; 188: 268-279
• 6 Jones AC, Woldemikael D, Fisher T. et al. Repeated computed tomographic scans in transferred trauma patients: Indications, costs, and radiation exposure. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012; 73: 1564-1569
• 7 Tierney WM, Fendrick AM, Hirth RA. et al. The clinical and economic impact of alternative staging strategies for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 1708-1713
• 8 Bauer MR, Bright EE, MacDonald JJ. et al. Quality of Life in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer and Their Caregivers: A Systematic Review. Pancreas 2018; 47: 368-375
• 9 Chiu CJ, Hsu YC, Tseng SP. Psychological prognosis after newly diagnosed chronic conditions: socio-demographic and clinical correlates. Int Psychoger 2017; 29: 281-292
• 10 Dengso KE, Andersen EW, Thomsen T. et al Increased psychological symptom burden in patients with pancreatic cancer: A population-based cohort study. Pancreatology 2020 Jan 8 (epub ahead of print)
• 11 Brauer DG, Strand MS, Sanford DE. et al. Utility of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the management of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal diseases: an observational study. HPB (Ocford) 2017; 19: 133-139
• 12 Bumm R, Siess M, Lange M. et al. Notwendige Voraussetzungen für die Funktion eines onkologischen Kompetenzzentrums. Dtsch Med Wochensch 2002; 127: 907-912
• 13 Lamb BW, Green JS, Benn J. et al. Improving decision making in multidisciplinary tumor boards: prospective longitudinal evaluation of a multicomponent intervention for 1421 patients. J Am Coll Sur 2013; 217: 412-420
• 14 Hacklander T. Standardisierung des radiologischen Befundberichts – Norm DIN 6827-5. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2004; 176: 1481-1484
• 15 Grenacher L, Juchems MS, Holzapfel K. et al. Aktuelle Schwerpunkte und Literatur der Abdominalradiologie im deutschsprachigen Raum – Teil 2: Parenchymatöse Oberbauchorgane. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2016; 188: 245-252
• 16 Schreyer AG, Dendl LM, Antoch G. et al Interdisciplinary tumor boards in the radiological routine: Current situation based on an online survey in Germany. Radiologe 2020 Apr 29 (epub ahead of print)
• 17 Schreyer AG, Rosenberg B, Steinhäuser RT. Externally acquired radiological image data and reporting for the clinical routine, conference and boards – Legal aspects of the second opinion in Germany. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2018; 190: 610-615