Differing Interpretations of Report Terminology Between Primary Care Physicians and Radiologists

Area of Science:

• Medical Imaging
• Oncology
• Clinical Communication

Background:

• Radiology report terminology interpretation can vary between radiologists and referring physicians.
• Discrepancies in understanding can lead to confusion in patient management.
• Standardizing the interpretation of key phrases is crucial for effective clinical communication.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the concordance in interpretation of radiology report terminology for metastatic disease between radiologists and primary care physicians (PCPs).
• To identify potential ambiguities in common phrases used to describe the likelihood of metastatic disease.

Main Methods:

• A survey was administered to radiologists and PCPs using an internal listserv.
• Respondents interpreted the statistical likelihood of metastatic disease based on ten common modifying terms in hypothetical radiology reports.
• Statistical analysis, including chi-squared or Fisher exact tests, was used to compare group interpretations.

Main Results:

• Both groups largely agreed on phrases indicating 100% likelihood ("diagnostic for metastatic disease," "represents metastatic disease") and 0% likelihood ("cannot exclude metastatic disease," "may represent metastatic disease").
• Radiologists assigned significantly higher statistical likelihoods than PCPs for terms such as "suspicious for metastatic disease" and "consistent with metastatic disease."
• Despite overall qualitative agreement, quantitative differences in likelihood assignment were observed for several phrases.

Conclusions:

• A qualitative consensus exists between radiologists and PCPs regarding the interpretation of specific radiology report terminology for metastatic disease.
• Subtle differences in the assigned statistical likelihoods by radiologists compared to PCPs highlight areas for potential communication improvement in radiology reporting.