Thursday, March 6, 2014
ECR 2014 - session SS105 - Trends in reporting, image management and mobile computing
10 presentations on different topics were covered in this scientific session:
Evaluation of a Siemens software tool called FastSpine to perform analysis of the spine with automatic labeling and curved reconstruction. They showed a high percentage of correct automatic labeling of 93.5%. FastSpine took about a minute to perform on average with manual correction where needed. The CAD provided time saving in more complex cases and had a comparable performance.
Two presentations focused on RECIST implementation. One looked at the implementation of dedicated tools for RECIST analysis and showed a clear saving in reading time while maintaing reproducibility. A Japanese group presented a cloud-based Lesion Management Solution that is used to track patients in lung cancer screening workup.
This session showed again that mobile devices are of great interest and interesting applications are identified and implemented. Four of the presentations covered this topic.A by dr von Falk showed that an iPad could be used for diagosis of CT data although screen size and security are still hampering the implementation. Another issue with mobile devices is the diiffering reading environments that cannot be controlled and thus could influence the reading quality. Mobile devices should probably be implemented as additional possibility and not for primary use.
The dkfz demonstrated the use of an iPad for offline analysis of radiology information at a distant location to be used during autopsy.
A group from Pisa also evaluated the iPad on CT images and showed the iPad to be faster for evaluation with even higher sensitivity and specificity for the iPad.
An important point to keep in mind with all the evidence for using iPads in radiology is that it is all focused on a limited, well defined, clinical question and mostly limits to CT.
Another group from Germany introduced the iPad in anatomical courses. The developed AnatomyMap a dedicated software tool for interactive exploration of volume rendered data running on a remote server using a web based interface.
A group from switzerland showed that after transfer from free text to structured reporting they needed quaity control of those structured reports. They analysed about 250 reports on over 30 criteria. They showed that one third was excellent, one third good and one third non-optimal. The two worst performing radiologists were those not (properly) using the structured reporting.
A Dutch group presented their work on interface customization. Most PACS systems have an adaptable interface, but the radiologist do not optimally use this capability. The showed that using adaptive support suggestions based on usage could help to improve radiology workflow and workstation usage.