Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 9, 2025

A Three-Dimensional Spheroid Model to Investigate the Tumor-Stromal Interaction in Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published on: September 30, 2021
Timing and Method of Patient-Provider Communication for Abnormal Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening Results in
Jeremy Louissaint1, Beverly Kyalwazi2, John Deng2
1Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
Purpose:
Patients with cirrhosis undergo frequent abdominal imaging including semiannual hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening, with results released immediately via the patient portal. We characterized time from patient review to patient-provider communication (PPC) for patients with abnormal liver imaging results.
Methods:
We identified patients with cirrhosis enrolled in the patient portal with a new abnormal liver lesion (LI-RADS, LR) on ambulatory liver ultrasound (US) or multiphasic computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging. Imaging findings were grouped into low-risk (US-2, LR-2), intermediate-risk (US-3, LR-3), and high-risk (LR-4, LR-5, LR-M, LR-TIV) results. We extracted three date-time events from the electronic health record, including result release to the patient, patient review of the result, and result-related PPC. We compared communication methods and the median time with PPC after patient review of results between groups.
Results:
The cohort included 133 patients (median age, 62 years, 56% male) with 34 (25.6%) low-risk, 61 (45.9%) intermediate-risk, and 38 (28.6%) high-risk results. PPC for high-risk results was predominantly via telephone calls (60.5%), whereas portal messages were most commonly used for low- and intermediate-risk results (61.8% and 45.9%, respectively; P < .001). For patients who reviewed their result on the portal, most (79.3%) reviewed the result before PPC, among whom the median time between review and PPC was 55.8 (IQR, 22.0-219.0), 167 (IQR, 42.7-324.0), and 47.3 (IQR, 25.8-78.8) hours for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk results, respectively (P = .02).
Conclusion:
Portal-based review of abnormal imaging results by patients before provider communication is common, including results concerning a new HCC diagnosis. Further studies are needed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes, such as psychological distress, associated with this method of disclosing cancer-related results.
More Related Videos
09:11Y-90 Radioembolization and PD-1 Inhibitor as Neoadjuvant Treatment in Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published on: May 24, 2024
09:49Dual-phase Cone-beam Computed Tomography to See, Reach, and Treat Hepatocellular Carcinoma during Drug-eluting Beads Transarterial Chemo-embolization
Published on: December 2, 2013