Structured Reporting and Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Testicular Tumor Assessment: A Retrospective Study to Enhance Diagnostic Clarity and Clinical Decision-Making
Author Block: M. L. Schnitzer, F. Herr, J. Rübenthaler; Munich/DE
Purpose: Structured reporting (SR) offers standardized radiological documentation, enhancing clarity and reproducibility. However, its role in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for testicular tumors remains underexplored. This study evaluates SR’s impact on diagnostic accuracy, clinical decision-making, and workflow efficiency compared to free-text reporting (FTR).
Methods or Background: In this retrospective, single-center study, 65 male patients with suspected testicular tumors underwent CEUS at LMU University Hospital. Reports were initially documented as FTRs by an experienced radiologist and later converted into SRs using Smart Reporting software. Four board-certified urologists independently assessed both formats using a structured questionnaire. Completeness, readability, trust, and impact on clinical decision-making were evaluated. Statistical analysis included McNemar’s test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, with α = 0.05.
Results or Findings: SRs significantly improved readability (97.3% vs. 10.0%, p < 0.001) and information extraction (98.8% vs. 91.9%, p < 0.001). However, completeness (56.9% vs. 60.8%, p = 0.427) and clinical decision support (85.7% vs. 84.9%, p = 0.152) were comparable. Trust in SRs was lower than in FTRs (4.92 vs. 5.22, p < 0.001), likely due to missing diagnostic parameters and retrospective SR generation.
Conclusion: SR enhances standardization and workflow efficiency but does not yet outperform FTRs in completeness or clinical decision-making. Interdisciplinary collaboration in template development and the integration of classification systems could improve SR’s diagnostic value. Future prospective, multicenter studies should assess real-time SR implementation and its potential impact on diagnostic accuracy and patient management.
Limitations: This study’s limitations include its retrospective, single-center design and small sample size, which may limit generalizability. The SRs were generated retrospectively from FTRs, potentially affecting trust and completeness. Additionally, missing diagnostic parameters and lack of real-time SR implementation could have influenced clinical decision-making outcomes.
Funding for this study: No funding.
Has your study been approved by an ethics committee? Yes
Ethics committee - additional information: LMU Munich Ethics Board