Abstract
ObjectiveTo retrospectively compare the accuracy of the initial MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) report of referring radiologists and the second opinion report.Material and methodsMRI of 155 patients presenting with a soft tissue tumor (STT) in a single large community center were referred for inclusion in the Belgian Soft Tissue Neoplasm Registry (BSTNR). The initial report and the second opinion report were made independently. Histopathology (gold standard) was obtained in 90 patients (group 1). In 65 patients, the diagnosis was made by the combination of clinical findings and/or follow-up (group 2). In group 1, the concordance in grading and tissue-specific (TS) diagnosis between the referring center (RC) and expert center (EC) was reviewed.ResultsIn group 1, MR grading yields a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 89% in the EC. The sensitivity was 88% and the specificity 81% in the RC. The accuracy was significantly higher in the EC (92%) compared to the RC (83%) (p = 0.039). The TS diagnosis was correct in 50% versus 38.5% of malignant tumors and in 71.8% versus 51.6% of benign tumors in the EC and RC respectively.ConclusionA second opinion report increases the accuracy in the diagnosis of STT on MRI.Main Messages• A second opinion MRI report increases the overall accuracy in the diagnosis of soft tissue tumors.• There is a good overall agreement in MR grading between the referring and expert institution.• In the expert center, there were fewer false-negative and false-positive diagnoses.• MRI performs better in the tissue-specific diagnosis of benign versus malignant STT.
Highlights
Soft tissue tumors (STT) consist of a heterogeneous group of tumors with a variable biological behavior and prognosis
The accuracy was significantly higher in the expert center (EC) (92%) compared to the referring center (RC) (83%) (p00.039)
A second opinion report increases the accuracy in the diagnosis of STT on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
Summary
Soft tissue tumors (STT) consist of a heterogeneous group of tumors with a variable biological behavior and prognosis. The added value of an expert second opinion report of soft tissue tumor specimens has been emphasized previously in the pathology and orthopedic literature[1,2,3,4]. The initiative started back in 2001 and had two main goals: firstly, to provide a second opinion report within 48 h as a professional courtesy toward the cooperating radiologists; secondly, to serve as a scientific database of STTs, which are rare lesions in daily radiological practice [10]. The purpose of the current study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging in grading and characterization of soft tissue tumors (STT) of the initial report made by the referring radiologist in a large community hospital and the second opinion report made by the experts of the BSTNR
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.