Explore the vast range of titles available.

Our retrospective single-center study aims to evaluate the impact of structured reporting (SR) using a self-developed template on report quality compared to free-text reporting (FTR) in [ 18 F]SiTATE Positron Emission Tomography/Computer Tomography (PET/CT) for the primary staging and therapy monitoring of patients diagnosed with neuroendocrine tumors (NET). In total 50 patients were included. FTRs and SRs were generated post-examination. All reports were evaluated by a radiologist and a surgeon through a questionnaire to determine their contribution to facilitating clinical decision-making and to assess their completeness, linguistic quality, and overall quality. SR significantly increased the capacity of facilitating therapy decision-making from 32% in FTR to 55% in SR ( p  < 0.001). Trust in the report was significantly higher in SR with a mean of 5.0 (SD = 0.5) vs. 4.7 (SD = 0.5) for FTR ( p  < 0.001). SR received significantly higher mean ratings regarding linguistic quality with 4.7 for SR vs. 4.4 for FTR ( p  = 0.004) and overall report quality with a mean of 4.9 for SR vs. 4.6 for FTR ( p  < 0.001). Concluding that SR enhances the overall quality of reports in [ 18 F]SiTATE-PET/CTs for NET staging, serving as a tool to streamline clinical decision-making and enhance interdisciplinary communication in the future.

ObjectivePostscreening colorectal cancer (PSCRC) after screening colonoscopy is associated with endoscopists’ performance and characteristics of resected lesions. Prior studies have shown that adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a decisive factor for PSCRC, but correlations with other parameters need further analysis and ADR may change over time.DesignCohort study including individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy between 1/2008 and 12/2019 performed by physicians participating in a quality assurance programme in Austria. Data were linked with hospitalisation data for the diagnosis of PSCRC (defined as CRC diagnosis >6 months after colonoscopy). ADR was defined dynamically in relation to the time point of subsequent colonoscopies; high-risk groups of patients were those with an adenoma ≥10 mm, or with high-grade dysplasia, or villous or tubulovillous histology, or a serrated lesion ≥10 mm or with dysplasia, or colonoscopies with ≥3 lesions. Main outcome was PSCRC for each risk group (negative colonoscopy, hyperplastic polyps, low-risk and high-risk group of patients) after colonoscopy by endoscopists with an ADR <20% compared with endoscopists with an ADR ≥20%.Results352 685 individuals were included in the study (51.0% women, median age 60 years) of which 10.5% were classified as high-risk group. During a median follow-up of 55.4 months, 241 (0.06%) PSCRC were identified; of 387 participating physicians, 19.6% had at least one PSCRC (8.4% two or more). While higher endoscopist ADR decreased PSCRC incidence (HR per 1% increase 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.98), affiliation to the high-risk group of patients was also associated with higher PSCRC incidence (HR 3.27, 95% CI 2.36 to 4.00). Similar correlations were seen with regards to high-risk, and advanced adenomas. The risk for PSCRC was significantly higher after colonoscopy by an endoscopist with an ADR <20% as compared with an endoscopist with an ADR ≥20% in patients after negative colonoscopy (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.0, p<0.001) and for the high-risk group of patients (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.22, p<0.001).ConclusionA dynamic calculation of the ADR takes into account changes over time but confirms the correlation of ADR and interval cancer. Both lesion characteristics and endoscopists ADR may play a similar role for the risk of PSCRC. This should be considered in deciding about appropriate surveillance intervals in the future.

Our retrospective single-center study aims to evaluate the impact of structured reporting (SR) using a self-developed template on report quality compared to free-text reporting (FTR) in [18F]SiTATE Positron Emission Tomography/Computer Tomography (PET/CT) for the primary staging and therapy monitoring of patients diagnosed with neuroendocrine tumors (NET). In total 50 patients were included. FTRs and SRs were generated post-examination. All reports were evaluated by a radiologist and a surgeon through a questionnaire to determine their contribution to facilitating clinical decision-making and to assess their completeness, linguistic quality, and overall quality. SR significantly increased the capacity of facilitating therapy decision-making from 32% in FTR to 55% in SR (p < 0.001). Trust in the report was significantly higher in SR with a mean of 5.0 (SD = 0.5) vs. 4.7 (SD = 0.5) for FTR (p < 0.001). SR received significantly higher mean ratings regarding linguistic quality with 4.7 for SR vs. 4.4 for FTR (p = 0.004) and overall report quality with a mean of 4.9 for SR vs. 4.6 for FTR (p < 0.001). Concluding that SR enhances the overall quality of reports in [18F]SiTATE-PET/CTs for NET staging, serving as a tool to streamline clinical decision-making and enhance interdisciplinary communication in the future.Our retrospective single-center study aims to evaluate the impact of structured reporting (SR) using a self-developed template on report quality compared to free-text reporting (FTR) in [18F]SiTATE Positron Emission Tomography/Computer Tomography (PET/CT) for the primary staging and therapy monitoring of patients diagnosed with neuroendocrine tumors (NET). In total 50 patients were included. FTRs and SRs were generated post-examination. All reports were evaluated by a radiologist and a surgeon through a questionnaire to determine their contribution to facilitating clinical decision-making and to assess their completeness, linguistic quality, and overall quality. SR significantly increased the capacity of facilitating therapy decision-making from 32% in FTR to 55% in SR (p < 0.001). Trust in the report was significantly higher in SR with a mean of 5.0 (SD = 0.5) vs. 4.7 (SD = 0.5) for FTR (p < 0.001). SR received significantly higher mean ratings regarding linguistic quality with 4.7 for SR vs. 4.4 for FTR (p = 0.004) and overall report quality with a mean of 4.9 for SR vs. 4.6 for FTR (p < 0.001). Concluding that SR enhances the overall quality of reports in [18F]SiTATE-PET/CTs for NET staging, serving as a tool to streamline clinical decision-making and enhance interdisciplinary communication in the future.

Background The 2020 postpolypectomy surveillance guideline update of European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy defines a more restrictive group of individuals in need for surveillance 3 years after colonoscopy. Aim The aim of this cohort study was to validate the new guideline recommendation. Methods Based on a national quality assurance program, we compared the 2020 risk group definition with the previous 2013 recommendations for their strength of association with (1) colorectal cancer death, and (2) all‐cause death. Results A total of 265,608 screening colonoscopies were included in the study. Mean age was 61.1 years (SD ±9.0), and 50.6% were women. During a mean follow‐up of 59.3 months (SD ±35.0), 170 CRC deaths and 7723 deaths of any cause were identified. 62.4% of colonoscopies were negative and 4.9% were assigned to surveillance after 3 years according to the 2020 guidelines versus 10.4% following the 2013 guidelines, which corresponds to a relative reduction in colonoscopies by 47%. The strength of association with CRC mortality was markedly higher with the 2020 surveillance group as compared to the 2013 guidelines (HR 2.56, 95% CI 1.62–4.03 vs. HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.13–2.62), while the magnitude of association with CRC mortality for low risk individuals was lower (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.83–1.63 vs. 1.25, 95% CI 0.88–1.76). Conclusions Adherence to the updated guidelines reduces the burden of surveillance colonoscopies by 47% while preserving the efficacy of surveillance in preventing CRC mortality. Key summary Summarize the established knowledge on this subject Individuals who had colorectal polyps removed are advised to undergo surveillance; intervals are based on the number, size, and histopathological features of the resected lesions. In 2020, the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) updated their postpolypectomy surveillance guideline. What are the significant and/or new findings of this study? The risk stratification introduced in the new guideline leads to a substantial reduction (by 47%) in the number of individuals in need for surveillance while preserving the efficacy of surveillance in preventing colorectal cancer mortality.