• Users Online: 105
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
HEALTH SYSTEMS AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 61-66

Synoptic reporting in lung cancers using Lung Cancer Reporting and Data System (LC-RADS): The road ahead for standardization of imaging in lung cancer staging


M.D., Fellowship In Cancer Imaging, MRes (KCL, London), Department of Radiodiagnosis & Imaging, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Submission20-Apr-2020
Date of Decision04-May-2020
Date of Acceptance09-Jan-2021
Date of Web Publication26-Mar-2021

Correspondence Address:
Abhishek Mahajan
Department of Radiodiagnosis, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai - 400 012, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/CRST.CRST_155_20

Get Permissions

  Abstract 


Words are the most important and sometimes the only medium of communication between a radiologist and a treating physician. The concept of structured reporting in radiology was well received in the face of growing concerns to overcome the limitations of unstructured reporting such as interobserver variations, errors in communication, and lack of standardization of reporting that primarily affect the patients who seek health care away from their diagnostic centers. With the introduction of synoptic reporting in radiology, it is now possible to standardize the reporting of diseases in a more comprehensive and less time-consuming manner, thus magnifying the impact of a radiological report in the further management of the disease under analysis. We aim to develop a standardized synoptic reporting template for lung cancers that would comprise and collate all the required computed tomography (CT) findings and demographic details of the patients. This will help the treating physicians and surgeons to plan the further course of disease management. It will also help to standardize the follow-up CT scans performed for the patients post any given treatment regimen with special reference to the likely complications caused by a particular treatment, such as radiation-related lung injury, immunotherapy-related toxicity, and surgical complications requiring urgent interventions.

Keywords: Computed tomography, lung cancer, Lung Cancer Reporting and Data System, oncology, synoptic reporting, NSCLC


How to cite this article:
Mahajan A. Synoptic reporting in lung cancers using Lung Cancer Reporting and Data System (LC-RADS): The road ahead for standardization of imaging in lung cancer staging. Cancer Res Stat Treat 2021;4:61-6

How to cite this URL:
Mahajan A. Synoptic reporting in lung cancers using Lung Cancer Reporting and Data System (LC-RADS): The road ahead for standardization of imaging in lung cancer staging. Cancer Res Stat Treat [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Apr 23];4:61-6. Available from: https://www.crstonline.com/text.asp?2021/4/1/61/312064




  Introduction Top


Synoptic reporting involves the documentation of specific and relevant data elements in a standardized, structured format, such that these elements form discrete mineable data fields that most notably help researchers.[1] With the establishment of the Reporting and Data System (RADS), which was mainly inspired by the American College of Radiology's practice guidelines for the communication of diagnostic findings, structured reporting has been increasingly implemented when reporting various systemic pathologies. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System by albumin-to-creatinine ratio is one of the earliest examples of a synoptic reporting system. Structured reporting in radiology is a sought-after concept because of the many limitations of unstructured reporting such as interobserver variations, errors in communication, and lack of standardization of reporting affecting patients who seek health care away from centers where diagnostic scans are done to name a few. Synoptic reporting in radiology allows for the standardized and comprehensive reporting of various diseases in a convenient and timely manner, which positively impacts further disease management.[2]

About 20% of the diagnosed lung cancers are localized and treated by surgical resection or definitive radiotherapy in cases where surgical resection is not feasible.[3] In another 20%–25% of the patients with local lymph nodal metastasis, a combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy is used, with the occasional use of surgery.[3] In the remaining patients with distant metastases, palliative chemotherapy and sometimes radiation therapy is administered.[3] Thus, about two-thirds of the patients with lung cancer require imaging follow-up at regular intervals for charting the disease status. In order to aid the clinical decision-making, the reports should present the most accurate information and answer all the clinically relevant questions in a standardized language that is simple and understandable.[4] A synoptic reporting format is imperative to communicate an accurate depiction of the progression, regression, or stability of the disease to the treating physician. This will further help to enhance and ease the provision of health care to the patients.[1],[5]

Therefore, we aimed to develop a template for the standardized synoptic reporting of lung cancers that would collate all the required imaging findings and demographic details of the patients that will help the treating physicians and surgeons to plan the further disease management. It will also aid to standardize the follow-up CT scans done for a patient post any given treatment regimen with special reference to the possible complications of a particular regimen such as radiation-related lung injury, immunotherapy-related toxicity, and surgical complications requiring urgent interventions. The reporting tool for communicating computed tomography (CT) findings in lung cancer to the treating physician or surgeon is termed Lung Cancer RADS (LC-RADS) [Table 1].
Table 1: The key elements of synoptic reporting in lung cancer using Lung Cancer Reporting and Data System (LC-RADS)

Click here to view



  Additional Recommendations Top


If used in conjunction with a screening positron emission tomography-CT, the standardized uptake value of the tumor should be mentioned along with the sites and sizes of other functional metastatic lesions, if any.[1],[5]

When reporting the response assessment CT scans of patients who have received radiation therapy as a part of their disease management, the radiologists should document the associated fibrotic changes and pulmonary volume loss due to therapy and distinguish it from a separate fibrosing pathology affecting the lungs, which may require additional treatment in symptomatic individuals. Imaging in the era of immunotherapy further entails the need to communicate the findings of drug-induced lung injury that may manifest in the form of diffuse alveolar damage, nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, spontaneous pneumothorax, pulmonary hemorrhage, bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia, etc.

Lung cancers, especially the non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs), commonly metastasize to the brain. Approximately 10%–20% of the patients with NSCLC already have brain metastases at the time of presentation, and an additional 40% develop brain metastases during the course of the disease, thus making brain screening an integral part of lung cancer staging.[6] However, when and how to screen has long been debated; most consensus guidelines recommend screening all Stage III lung cancers.[7],[8] There are variations in the recommendations from various guidelines for performing screening brain magnetic resonance imaging during the earlier stages of the disease. Version 4 of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria 2018 does not advise screening in Stage IA and states that screening is optional in Stage IB and mandatory in Stages II–III. Screening is indicated in all clinically symptomatic patients.[9]

The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-node-metastasis staging of lung cancer is presented for guiding the radiologist in reporting the necessary findings in order to appropriately stage the cancer for further management, thus adding to the concept of personalized medicine [Table 2].[10],[11]
Table 2: The American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-node-metastasis staging of lung cancer 8th edition[10],[11]

Click here to view



  Response Criteria in Lung Cancers Treated With Immunotherapeutic Agents Top


There is a considerable difference in the response of tumors to immunotherapeutic agents as compared to chemotherapeutic drugs.[12] The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) group designed immune RECIST (iRECIST) based on RECIST 1.1 to facilitate the development of guidelines for the assessment of the tumor response to immunotherapeutic agents.[13] A comparative description of the chief differences and similarities between RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST is summarized in [Table 3].[14],[15],[16] The terminologies used in iRECIST are as follows:
Table 3: Comparison of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 with immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors

Click here to view


  1. Immune complete response
  2. Immune partial response
  3. Immune confirmed progressive disease
  4. Immune unconfirmed progressive disease
  5. Immune stable disease
  6. Partial response
  7. Progressive disease


[Table 4] presents various practical tips and tricks for lung cancer imaging.
Table 4: Tips for lung cancer imaging

Click here to view



  Conclusion Top


The radiologists play a critical role in the diagnosis, staging, and follow-up of patients with NSCLC. Recognition of the relevant radiologic appearances of lung cancer with an understanding of the appropriateness of staging and awareness of potential imaging pitfalls is crucial for personalized management of the patients. Synoptic reporting in radiology makes it possible to standardize the reporting of diseases in a manner that is more thorough, easy to read, and with the added advantage of providing relevant information without consuming much time and reducing the chances of leaving out on any vital information that may impact on the further management of the disease under analysis.[28]

This reporting system will further generalize the description of radiological imaging features and their clinical relevance across various medical facilities.

Acknowledgement

I am extremely grateful to Dr Puja Pande and Dr Prerit Sharma for their valuable inputs.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Vaidya T, Agrawal A, Mahajan S, Thakur MH, Mahajan A. The continuing evolution of molecular functional imaging in clinical oncology: The road to precision medicine and radiogenomics (Part I). Mol Diagn Ther 2019;23:1-26.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
SanthoshKumar GV, Mahajan A, Desai S, Thakur M. Second opinion by in-house radiologists: Present picture and emphasis on standardizing imaging protocol in oncology. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2017;46:356-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Lu T, Yang X, Huang Y, Zhao M, Li M, Ma K, et al. Trends in the incidence, treatment, and survival of patients with lung cancer in the last four decades. Cancer Manag Res 2019;11:943-53.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Jones CM, Brunelli A, Callister ME, Franks KN. Multimodality treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Where are we with the evidence? Curr Surg Rep 2018;6:5.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Mahajan A, Goh V, Basu S, Vaish R, Weeks AJ, Thakur MH, et al. Bench to bedside molecular functional imaging in translational cancer medicine: To image or to imagine? Clin Radiol 2015;70:1060-82.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Schoenmaekers JJ, Dingemans AM, Hendriks LE. Brain imaging in early stage non-small cell lung cancer: Still a controversial topic? J Thorac Dis 2018;10:S2168-71.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Yokoi K, Kamiya N, Matsuguma H, Machida S, Hirose T, Mori K, et al. Detection of brain metastasis in potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer: A comparison of CT and MRI. Chest 1999;115:714-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Lee TH, Choe DH, Cheon GJ, Kim CH, Koh JS, Baek H, et al. A diagnostic model to detect silent brain metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 2008;44:2411-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physiciangls/pdf/nscl.pdf. [Last accessed on 2020 Mar 11].  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Amin MB; American Joint Committee on Cancer and American Cancer Society. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. Chicago, IL: American Joint Committee on Cancer, Springer; 2017.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Vaidya T, Desai S, Mahajan A. 8th edition AJCC and imaging TNM: Time to break-in and assert in the staging process! Indian J Cancer 2019;56:271-3.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Ferté C, Marabelle A. iRECIST: A clarification of tumour response assessment in the immunotherapy era. Eur J Cancer 2017;77:165-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Le Lay J, Jarraya H, Lebellec L, Penel N. irRECIST and iRECIST: The devil is in the details. Ann Oncol 2017;28:1676-8.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A, Ford R, Schwartz LH, Mandrekar S, et al. iRECIST: Guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:e143-52.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Tazdait M, Mezquita L, Lahmar J, Ferrara R, Bidault F, Ammari S, et al. Patterns of responses in metastatic NSCLC during PD-1 or PDL-1 inhibitor therapy: Comparison of RECIST 1.1, irRECIST and iRECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer 2018;88:38-47.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Beer L, Hochmair M, Haug AR, Schwabel B, Kifjak D, Wadsak W, et al. Comparison of RECIST, iRECIST, and PERCIST for the evaluation of response to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2019;44:535-43.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Sheha AS, Elia RZ, Ghoneim NM. The added value of18F-FDG PET/CT in staging non-small cell lung cancer. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2019;50:73.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Hollings N, Shaw P. Diagnostic imaging of lung cancer. Eur Respir J 2002;19:722-42.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Purandare NC, Rangarajan V. Imaging of lung cancer: Implications on staging and management. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2015;25:109-20.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
20.
Manenti G, Raguso M, D'Onofrio S, Altobelli S, Scarano AL, Vasili E, et al. Pancoast tumor: The role of magnetic resonance imaging. Case Rep Radiol 2013;2013:479120.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Schoenmaekers J, Hofman P, Bootsma G, Westenend M, de Booij M, Schreurs W, et al. Screening for brain metastases in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography? A prospective study. Eur J Cancer 2019;115:88-96.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Mineo TC, Schillaci O, Pompeo E, Mineo D, Simonetti G. Usefulness of lung perfusion scintigraphy before lung cancer resection in patients with ventilatory obstruction. Ann Thorac Surg 2006;82:1828-34.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Albano D, Agnello F, Midiri F, Pecoraro G, Bruno A, Alongi P, et al. Imaging features of adrenal masses. Insights Imaging 2019;10:1.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Bhalla AS, Goyal A, Guleria R, Gupta AK. Chest tuberculosis: Radiological review and imaging recommendations. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2015;25:213-25.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
25.
Pesapane F, Downey K, Rotili A, Cassano E, Koh DM. Imaging diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer. Insights Imaging 2020;11:79.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Vallathol DH, Patil VM, Noronha V, Joshi A, Menon N, Prabhash K. Leptomeningeal metastasis from extracranial solid tumors. Cancer Res Stat Treat 2020;3:254-63.  Back to cited text no. 26
  [Full text]  
27.
Demirev AK, Kostadinova ID, Gabrovski IR. 18 F-FDG PET/CT in patients with parenchymal changes attributed to radiation pneumonitis. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther 2018;27:107-12.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Almuhaideb A, Papathanasiou N, Bomanji J. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in oncology. Ann Saudi Med 2011;31:3-13.  Back to cited text no. 28
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Additional Recom...
Response Criteri...
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed122    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded10    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal