Back

Performance and Evaluation in Computed Tomographic Colonography Screening (PERFECTS): Protocol for a Cluster Randomised Trial

Plumb, A. A.; Obaro, A. E.; Bassett, P.; Baldwin-Cleland, R.; Halligan, S.; Burling, D.

2020-02-27 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2020.02.25.20027714 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is a common, important healthcare priority and improving patient outcome relies on early diagnosis. Colonoscopy and computed tomographic colonography (CTC) are commonly-used diagnostic tests. Although colonoscopists are highly regulated and must be accredited, no analogous process exists for CTC. There are currently no universally accepted radiologist performance indicators for CTC, and lack of regulatory oversight may lead to variability in quality and lower neoplasia detection rates. This study aims to determine whether a structured educational training and feedback programme can improve radiologist interpretation accuracy. MethodsNHS England CTC reporting radiologists will be cluster randomised to either an intervention (one-day individualised training and assessment with feedback) or control (assessment with no training or feedback) arm. Each cluster represents radiologists reporting CTC in a single NHS site. Both the intervention and control arm will undertake four CTC assessments at baseline, 1-month (after training; intervention arm or enrolment; control arm), 6- and 12 months to assess their detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and 6mm+ polyps. The primary outcome will be difference in sensitivity at the 1-month test between arms. Secondary outcomes will include sensitivity at 6 and 12 months and radiologist characteristics associated with improved performance. Multilevel logistic regression will be used to analyse per-polyp and per-case sensitivity. Local ethical and Health Research Authority approval have been obtained. DiscussionLack of infrastructure to ensure that CTC radiologists can report adequately and lack of consensus regarding appropriate quality metrics may lead to variability in performance. Our provision of a structured education programme with feedback will evaluate the impact of individualised training and identify the factors related to improved radiologist performance in CTC reporting. An improvement in performance could lead to increased neoplasia detection and better patient outcome. RegistrationClinical Trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02892721); available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02892721. NIHR Clinical Research Network (CPMS ID 32293).

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 13%
14.5%
2
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.5%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
10.2%
4
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.5%
5
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
6
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.6%
7
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
8
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.9%
9
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
10
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.8%
12
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
13
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
14
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
15
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
16
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.2%
18
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
19
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
20
Archives of Disease in Childhood
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
21
Human Mutation
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
22
Communications Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
23
American Journal of Gastroenterology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
24
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
25
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
26
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
27
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
28
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%