Terminology and Reporting Criteria for Radiofrequency Ablation of Tumors in the Scientific Literature: Systematic Review of Compliance with Reporting Standards.
- Author:
Tae Wook KANG
1
;
Hyunchul RHIM
;
Min Woo LEE
;
Young Sun KIM
;
Dongil CHOI
;
Hyo Keun LIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- Keywords: Terminology; Neoplasms; Reference standards; Ablation techniques; Review
- MeSH: *Catheter Ablation; Female; *Guideline Adherence; Humans; Neoplasms/*surgery; *Terminology as Topic; Writing/*standards
- From:Korean Journal of Radiology 2014;15(1):95-107
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of compliance with standardized terminology and reporting criteria for radiofrequency (RF) tumor ablation, proposed by the International Working Group on Image-Guided Tumor Ablation in 2003, in the published reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature search in the PubMed database was performed using index keywords, PubMed limit system, and eligibility criteria. The entire content of each article was reviewed to assess the terminology used for procedure terms, imaging findings, therapeutic efficacy, follow-up, and complications. Accuracy of the terminology and the use of alternative terms instead of standard terminology were analyzed. In addition, disparities in accuracy of terminology in articles according to the medical specialty and the type of radiology journal were evaluated. RESULTS: Among the articles (n = 308) included in this study, the accuracy of the terms 'procedure or session', 'treatment', 'index tumor', 'ablation zone', 'technical success', 'primary technique effectiveness rate', 'secondary technique effectiveness rate', 'local tumor progression', 'major complication', and 'minor complication' was 97% (298/307), 97% (291/300), 8% (25/307), 65% (103/159), 55% (52/94), 33% (42/129), 94% (17/18), 45% (88/195), 99% (79/80), and 100% (77/77), respectively. The overall accuracy of each term showed a tendency to improve over the years. The most commonly used alternative terms for 'technical success' and 'local tumor progression' were 'complete ablation' and 'local (tumor) recurrence', respectively. The accuracy of terminology in articles published in radiology journals was significantly greater than that of terminology in articles published in non-radiology journals, especially in Radiology and The Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. CONCLUSION: The proposal for standardization of terminology and reporting criteria for RF tumor ablation has been gaining support according to the recently published scientific reports, especially in the field of radiology. However, more work is still needed for the complete standardization of terminology.
