Improved efficiency in clinical workflow of reporting measured oncology lesions via PACS-integrated lesion tracking tool.

OBJECTIVE. Imaging provides evidence for the response to oncology treatment by the serial measurement of reference lesions. Unfortunately, the identification, comparison, measurement, and documentation of several reference lesions can be an inefficient process. We tested the hypothesis that optimized workflow orchestration and tight integration of a lesion tracking tool into the PACS and speech recognition system can result in improvements in oncologic lesion measurement efficiency. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. A lesion management tool tightly integrated into the PACS workflow was developed. We evaluated the effect of the use of the tool on measurement reporting time by means of a prospective time-motion study on 86 body CT examinations with 241 measureable oncologic lesions with four radiologists. RESULTS. Aggregated measurement reporting time per lesion was 11.64 seconds in standard workflow, 16.67 seconds if readers had to register measurements de novo, and 6.36 seconds for each subsequent follow-up study. Differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05) for each reader, except for one difference for one reader. CONCLUSION. Measurement reporting time can be reduced by using a PACS workflow-integrated lesion management tool, especially for patients with multiple follow-up examinations, reversing the onetime efficiency penalty at baseline registration.

Robust segmentation of mass-lesions in contrast-enhanced dynamic breast MR images.

PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a computerized segmentation method for breast MRI (BMRI) mass-lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A computerized segmentation algorithm was developed to segment mass-like-lesions on breast MRI. The segmentation algorithm involved: (i) interactive lesion selection, (ii) automatic intensity threshold estimation, (iii) connected component analysis, and (iv) a postprocessing procedure for hole-filling and leakage removal. Seven observers manually traced the borders of all slices of 30 mass-lesions using the same tools. To initiate the computerized segmentation, each user selected a seed-point for each lesion interactively using two methods: direct seed-point and robust region of interest (ROI) selections. The manual and computerized segmentations were compared pair-wise using the measured size and overlap to evaluate similarity, and the reproducibility of the computerized segmentation was compared with the interobserver variability of the manual delineations. RESULTS: The observed inter- and intraobserver variations were similar (P > 0.05). Computerized segmentation using the robust ROI selection method was significantly (P < 0.001) more reproducible in measuring lesion size (stDev 1.8%) than either manual contouring (11.7%) or computerized segmentation using directly placed seed-point method (13.7%). CONCLUSION: The computerized segmentation method using robust ROI selection is more reproducible than manual delineation in terms of measuring the size of a mass-lesion.