Table 3 Summarized responses- comparison between participants working in academic vs. nonacademic hospitals
From: Radiology reporting in oncology—oncologists’ perspective
Academic hospital No. of respondents (%) | Non-academic hospital No. of respondents (%) | |
|---|---|---|
How easy do you find tumour measurements in the report? | ||
Most of the time difficult | 6/26 (23%) | 4/20 (20%) |
Sometimes easy, but sometimes difficult | 8/26 (30%) | 8/20 (40%) |
Most of the time easy | 12/26 (46%) | 2/20 (30%) |
How often do you, or your team measure tumours? | ||
Daily > 3 cases | 4/26 (15%) | 3/20 (15%) |
Daily 1–3 cases | 6/26 (23%) | 3/20 (15%) |
Weekly 1–3 cases | 9/26 (34%) | 9/20 (45%) |
Measurement criteria currently used for tumour assessment | ||
RECIST1.1/iRECIST | 23/26 (88%) | 13/20 (65%) |
Is the text only report with minimal quantification adequate for tumour assessment? | ||
Sometimes, but not very often | 10/26 (38%) | 8/20 (40%) |
Most of the times | 14/26 (53%) | 6/20 (30%) |
Saved key images with tumour measurements in PACS, makes finding the measurements easier | ||
Agree/Strongly agree | 22/26 (85%) | 14/20 (70%) |
A structured report following pre-defined templates has better content and greater clarity than conventional, non-structured report. | ||
Agree/Strongly agree | 23/26 (88%) | 16/20 (80%) |
A report made by a radiologist subspecialised in oncologis imaging is of greater value as compared to a report made by a general radiologist | ||
Agree/Strongly agree | 21/26 (81%) | 16/20 (80%) |