CONSIDER...technology that contains the following capabilities,which can mitigate the need for added stepsfor the radiologist
MULTIMEDIA-ENHANCED
RADIOLOGYREPORTING
PROCEDURE: CT Abdomen with contrast
CLINICAL INDICATION: Liver metastases (unknown primary tumor).
TECHNIQUE: CT scan of the abdomen with and without contrast was performed ont he volumetric 64 sliceCT scanner. The patient was scanned following the uncomplicated intravenous administration of 100 cc ofOmnipaque 300. 3-D coronal reformatted images were obtained from the axial source images.
COMPARISON: None
FINDINGS: The lung bases are clear. The heart size is normal, without pericardial thickening or effusion.There are several hypodense lesions on both lobes of the liver the largest with a diameter of 54.00 mm thatrepresent liver metastasis from unknown origin most probably.The spleen is normal in size and homogeneous in density. The stomach is partially collapsed, but is grosslyunremarkable. The pancreas as visualized is normal. The gallbladder and biliary tree are unremarkable andthere is no evidence for biliary dilatation. The adrenal glands are symmetric and normal.The kidneys are symmetrically unremarkable as well. The collecting system on the right is enlarged.The aorta is of normal caliber. Aortic calci�cations are present. There is no retroperitoneallymphadenopathy. The porta hepatis region is clear. The bowel and mesentery, as visualized, are equallyunremarkable.S/P total left hip replacement.The surrounding osseous structures are remarkable for mild degenerative spondylosis of the spine. Mildscoliosis of the lumbar spine No osteolytic or osteoblastic lesion is detected.
IMPRESSION:1. Several liver metastasis on both lobes from unknown origin.2. S/P total left hip replacement
Name: KING KEVIN ID: 201222091934Accession No.: 9275000235689 Report Date: 23/12/2005
Referring Physician: David Evans, MD 713-213-5479 [email protected]
Report Information
Midland Imaging
PROCEDURE: CT Chest.
CLINICAL INDICATION: Known left-sided squamous cell carcinoma of the lung post surgery with suspectedlung metastsis
TECHNIQUE: CT scan of the chest without contrast was performed on the GE volumetric 64 slice CT scanner.3-D coronal reformatted images were obtained from the axial source images.
COMPARISON: CT March 31 2012, CT June 23 2012
Name: DAVIS DOROTHY ID: 201201061940Accession No.: 9275000234567 Report Date: 28/09/2012
Referring Physician: David Evans, MD 713-213-5479 [email protected]
Report Information
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
F05 F04 F07
Volu
me
31/03/2012Baseline
28/09/2012Followup
07/08/2012
Date
23/06/2012Followup
Target LesionsName Target Description SeriesImageLong Diameter (mm)Short Diameter (mm)Volume (mm3)SUV Max (BW)
B06 (F04) Target Lesion (Lung) 3 99 13 5.4 407.8 --
B08 (F07) Target Lesion (Lung) 3 63 12.8 8.3 437.9 --
B07 (F05) Target Lesion (Lung) 3 71 7.9 5.7 228.1 --
Sum of target lesions (3): 33.7mm (Long)The automatic segmented lesions may not have been approved or adjusted
Change Over TimeName Target Baseline
2012-03-312012-06-23 2012-09-28 (Current)
F05 Target Volume (mm3)
Long (mm)
Short (mm)
109.4 (--)
7.1 (--)
3.5 (--)
165.4 (+51.2%)
7.3 (+4%)
5.1 (+43.9%)
140
228.1 (+108.5%)
7.9 (+12.2%)
5.7 (+62.6%)
170
Midland Imaging
2005-12-23, CT Abdomen
Study Information
Name Target Description Series Image Long Diameter (mm) Short Diameter (mm) Volume (mm3) SUV Max (BW)
Other Lesions
Signed ByJohn Jennings, MD
B01 Lesion (Liver) 5861 72 34.8 25.4 8888.7 --
B02 Lesion (Liver) 5861 67 54 44.7 49936.2 --
The automatic segmented lesions may not have been approved or adjusted.
THE VALUE OFMULTIMEDIA-ENHANCED
RADIOLOGYREPORTING
THE VALUE OF
MERRPROVIDES GREATERVALUE TO RADIOLOGISTS
MERRFACILITIES
67% believe that using interactive MERR,
they would be more likely to review both report text and images with patients.
Midland Imaging
Name:Patient ID:History:Date of Birth:Study CT chest with contrastFacility:Physician: XXXXX XXXXXX, MDDate of Service: XX/XX/XXXX XX:XX:XX
PROCEDURE: CT chest with contrast
REASON FOR EXAM: Female, 59 years old. Congestion and a left upper lobe in�ltrate.
RADIATION DOSAGE: (if Supplied by Facility): CTDlvol=(30.34) mGy, DLP=(523.87) mGycm.
TECHNIQUE: High resolution transaxial imaging was preformed following intravenous administration of 100ml ofIsovue 300 contrast material. Multi planar coronal and sagittal images were reformatted.
COMPARISON: Prior CT scan 02/20/13 and radiographs 02/26/13
believe that using MERR, they would be more likely to provide patients access to both text reports and images.
66%
80%believed that MERR
would representan improvement
85%expressed interest in
having access to diagnostic images forradiology reports that
currently do notinclude images
AND HERE’S THE FINAL REPORT
For more information, visit carestream.com/vue-reporting
80%believed that MERR
would representan improvement
Improvedunderstanding of
radiology �ndings by correlating images to
text reports.
Time saved trying to understand �ndings without
supporting imaging.
Easier accessto images while
monitoring progression of a disease/condition.
Easier access to images while planning
treatment.
C O N C L U S I O N :
MERRPROVIDES GREATERVALUE TO RADIOLOGISTS
C O N C L U S I O N :
SOURCES:
Gelareh Sadigh, MD, Timothy Hertweck, BA, Cristine Kao, BSc, Paul Wood, BA,Danny Hughes, PhD, Travis S. Henry, MD, Richard Duszak Jr, MD, “Traditional Text-Only Versus Multimedia-Enhanced Radiology Reporting: Referring Physicians’ Perceptions of Value,” Journal of American College of Radiology, January 23, 2015.
jacr.org/article/S1546-1440(14)00737-6/abstract
79%of physicians are more
likely to recommend thattheir peers refer patients
to a facility withmultimedia reporting
80%of physicians
would preferentially refer patients to a facility with multimedia reporting
COMMONLY REPORTED ADVANTAGES OF MERR
80%of physicians
would preferentially refer patients to a facility with multimedia reporting
79%of physicians are more
likely to recommend thattheir peers refer patients
to a facility withmultimedia reporting
85%expressed interest in
having access to diagnostic images forradiology reports that
currently do notinclude images
Participants, on average, reportedproviding patients withcopies of text reports
of the time. 50%
66%
50%
86%
79%
66%
64%
MERR IS NOT WITHOUT ITS CONCERNS
Compared with text-only reports, most physicians (57%) reported that MERR would be of more value for studies with signi�cant positive �ndings.
More than half of physicians (53%) reported that MERR would be more valuable than text-only reports for conditions that require follow-up and monitoring of the progressionof a disease over a period of time.
28% of physicians said they had concerns about MERR implementation
MULTIMEDIA-ENHANCEDRADIOLOGY REPORTING (MERR)providing advantages to radiologists
across specialties
MULTIMEDIA-ENHANCEDRADIOLOGY REPORTING (MERR)providing advantages to radiologists
across specialties
Clinic work�ow does not allowviewing reports in such a fashion.
42%
Too time intensive.
53%
Automatically include key images into report
Automatically include hyperlinks to key diagnoses or anatomical markers
Take key measurements and automatically present comparisons and highlight major changes
