Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal-Journal De L Association Canadienne Des Radiologistes最新文献

Purpose: This study evaluates the efficacy of a commercial medical Named Entity Recognition (NER) model combined with a post-processing protocol in identifying incidental pulmonary nodules from CT reports. Methods: We analyzed 9165 anonymized CT reports and classified them into 3 categories: no nodules, nodules present, and nodules >6 mm. For each report, a generic medical NER model annotated entities and their relations, which were then filtered through inclusion/exclusion criteria selected to identify pulmonary nodules. Ground truth was established by manual review. To better understand the relationship between model performance and nodule prevalence, a subset of the data was programmatically balanced to equalize the number of reports in each class category. Results: In the unbalanced subset of the data, the model achieved a sensitivity of 97%, specificity of 99%, and accuracy of 99% in detecting pulmonary nodules mentioned in the reports. For nodules >6 mm, sensitivity was 95%, specificity was 100%, and accuracy was 100%. In the balanced subset of the data, sensitivity was 99%, specificity 96%, and accuracy 97% for nodule detection; for larger nodules, sensitivity was 94%, specificity 99%, and accuracy 98%. Conclusions: The NER model demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity in detecting pulmonary nodules reported in CT scans, including those >6 mm which are potentially clinically significant. The results were consistent across both unbalanced and balanced datasets indicating that the model performance is independent of nodule prevalence. Implementing this technology in hospital systems could automate the identification of at-risk patients, ensuring timely follow-up and potentially reducing missed or late-stage cancer diagnoses.

Radiology departments are increasingly tasked with managing growing demands on services including long waitlists for scanning and interventional procedures, human health resource shortages, equipment needs, and challenges incorporating advanced imaging solutions. The burden of system inefficiencies and the overuse of "low-value" imaging causes downstream impact on patients at the individual level, the economy and healthcare system at the societal level, and planetary health at an overarching level. Low value imaging includes those performed for an inappropriate clinical indication, with little to no value to the management of the patient, and resulting in healthcare resource waste; it is estimated that up to a quarter of advanced imaging studies in Canada meet this criterion. Strategies to reduce low-value imaging include the development and use of referral guidelines, use of appropriateness criteria, optimization of existing protocols, and integration of clinical decision support tools into the ordering provider's workflow. Additional means of optimizing system efficiency such as centralized intake models, improved access to electronic medical records and outside imaging, enhanced communication with patients and referrers, and the utilization of artificial intelligence will further increase the value of radiology provided to patients and care providers.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Cancer Expert Panel is made up of physicians from the disciplines of radiology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, family medicine/general practitioner oncology, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. The Expert Panel developed a list of 29 clinical/diagnostic scenarios, of which 16 pointed to other CAR guidelines. A rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for one or more of the remaining 13 scenarios. Recommendations from 21 guidelines and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop the recommendation for these scenarios. During recommendation formulation, one additional scenario was mapped to an existing CAR guideline scenario, leaving 12 scenarios with new recommendations. The guideline focuses on cancer diagnosis and does not cover cancer staging, follow-up, and surveillance. This guideline presents the methods of development and the referral recommendations for suspected pancreatic cancer, suspected liver cancer, incidental liver mass, incidental colon mass or suspected colon cancer, suspected anal cancer, suspected penile cancer, suspected cervical cancer, suspected endometrial/uterine cancer, suspected vulvar cancer, suspected vaginal cancer, suspected haematologic malignancies, and suspected skin cancer. The guideline also points to other CAR guidelines for suspected neck, thyroid, brain, lung, intracardiac/pericardial, esophageal/gastric, renal, adrenal, bladder, testicular, prostate and ovarian cancers, suspected soft tissue mass or tumour, suspected bone tumour, suspected bone tumour --myeloma, suspected spine tumours, and incidental lung cancer.

Contrast media, including iodinated contrast media and gadolinium-based contrast agents, are commonly administered pharmaceuticals with excellent safety profiles. However, a minority of the population may experience a hypersensitivity reaction following intravenous administration. Hypersensitivity reactions can be immediate or delayed, and range from mild, such as urticaria, to severe, including anaphylaxis. There is emerging evidence that longstanding pretreatment protocols, such as diphenhydramine and corticosteroids, are ineffective and have the potential for side effects and other harms. Moreover, the evidence for efficacy on which this practice is based is weak and outdated. A joint collaborative working group of representatives from the Canadian Association of Radiologists and the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology was assembled to inform medical professionals and hospital policies regarding hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media. The objectives of the working group were to provide an overview of the epidemiology, physiology, risk factors, and types of hypersensitivity reactions; to synthesize the evidence for pretreatment strategies that minimize the risk of a breakthrough reaction for both iodinated contrast media and gadolinium-based contrast agents; to review the allergy investigations used to evaluate patients with a history of severe hypersensitivity reaction; and to provide an overview of existing guidelines. Following appraisal of the evidence, the working group established recommendations based on consensus in this practice guidance.

This practice guideline serves as an update to the Canadian Association of Radiologists' 2013 Technical Standards for Bone Mineral Densitometry Reporting. It aims to align bone mineral density testing and reporting practices in Canada with current clinical best practices, including guidelines from Osteoporosis Canada and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. Key updates include the endorsement of both FRAX and CAROC tools for evaluating fracture risk, guidance for analyzing male patients and transgender patients, and provision of clinical management guidance of relevance to BMD reporting harmonized with that of Osteoporosis Canada. The document emphasizes the importance of accurate data collection in fracture risk assessment and provides recommendations for reporting fracture risk, T-scores, and clinical management strategies. Additionally, it outlines indications for baseline BMD testing and reassessment timelines, aiming to facilitate appropriate patient management and enhance bone health outcomes. This guideline is intended to complement existing standards and support healthcare professionals in delivering optimal care for patients undergoing BMD testing in Canada.

Radiologists and other diagnostic imaging specialists play a pivotal role in the management of osteoporosis, a highly prevalent condition of reduced bone strength and increased fracture risk. Bone mineral density (BMD) measurement with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is a critical component of identifying individuals at high risk for fracture. Strategies to prevent fractures are consolidated in the Osteoporosis Canada clinical practice guideline which was updated in 2023. In this guideline, treatment recommendations are based upon a consideration of fracture history, 10-year major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) risk, and BMD T-score in conjunction with age. The current review aims to familiarize radiologists and other diagnostic imaging specialists with the reporting requirements needed to support implementation of this guideline using the FRAX™ risk calculation tool. Fortunately, for specialists already familiar with the Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tool, the transition to FRAX-based reporting is readily accommodated in a radiology workflow.