Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Abdominal Radiology 7/2018

01-07-2018

Radiologists’ preferences regarding content of prostate MRI reports: a survey of the Society of Abdominal Radiology

Authors: Benjamin Spilseth, Daniel J. Margolis, Sangeet Ghai, Nayana U. Patel, Andrew B. Rosenkrantz

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 7/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate radiologist preferences regarding specific content that warrants inclusion in prostate MRI reports.

Methods

Sixty-one members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology responded to a 74-item survey regarding specific content warranted in prostate MRI reports, conducted in August 2016.

Results

General items deemed essential report content by ≥ 50% of respondents were prostate volume (80%), extent of prostate hemorrhage (74%), TURP defects (69%), coil type (64%), BPH (61%), contrast dose (61%), contrast agent (59%), medications administered (59%), and magnet strength (54%). Details regarding lesion description deemed essential by ≥ 50% were overall PI-RADS category (88%), DCE (±) (82%), subjective degree of diffusion restriction (72%), T2WI intensity (72%), T2WI margins (65%), T2WI shape (52%), DWI 1-5 score (50%), and T2WI 1-5 score (50%). Details deemed essential to include in the report Impression by ≥ 50% of respondents were lymphadenopathy and metastases (100%), EPE (98%), SVI (98%), neurovascular bundle involvement (93%), index lesion location (93%), PI-RADS category of index lesion (82%), number of suspicious lesions (78%), significance of index lesion PI-RADS category (53%), and PI-RADS category of non-index lesions (52%). Preferred methods for lesion localization were slice/image number (68%), 3-part craniocaudal level (68%), zonal location (65%), anterior vs. posterior location (57%), and medial vs. lateral position (56%). Least preferred methods for localization were numeric sector from the PI-RADS sector map (8%), annotated screen capture (10%), and graphical schematic of PI-RADS sector map (11%).

Conclusion

Radiologists generally deemed a high level of detail warranted in prostate MRI reports. The PI-RADS v2 sector map was disliked for lesion localization.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH, et al. (2017) Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(2):579–585CrossRefPubMed Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH, et al. (2017) Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(2):579–585CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Jama 313(4):390CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Jama 313(4):390CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, et al. (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 186(4):1281–1285CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, et al. (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 186(4):1281–1285CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. (2016) PI-RADS Prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40CrossRefPubMed Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. (2016) PI-RADS Prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH (2017) Diagnostic performance of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 72:177–188CrossRefPubMed Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH (2017) Diagnostic performance of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 72:177–188CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Rosenkrantz AB, Oto A, Turkbey B, Westphalen AC (2016) Prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS), version 2: a critical look. Am J Roentgenol 206(6):1179–1183CrossRef Rosenkrantz AB, Oto A, Turkbey B, Westphalen AC (2016) Prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS), version 2: a critical look. Am J Roentgenol 206(6):1179–1183CrossRef
8.
9.
go back to reference Mortani Barbosa EJ, Lynch MC, Langlotz CP, Gefter WB (2016) Optimization of radiology reports for intensive care unit portable chest radiographs. J Thorac Imaging 31(1):43–48CrossRefPubMed Mortani Barbosa EJ, Lynch MC, Langlotz CP, Gefter WB (2016) Optimization of radiology reports for intensive care unit portable chest radiographs. J Thorac Imaging 31(1):43–48CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Travis AR, Sevenster M, Ganesh R, Peters JF, Chang PJ (2014) Preferences for structured reporting of measurement data. An institutional survey of medical oncologists, oncology registrars, and radiologists. Acad Radiol 21(6):785–796CrossRefPubMed Travis AR, Sevenster M, Ganesh R, Peters JF, Chang PJ (2014) Preferences for structured reporting of measurement data. An institutional survey of medical oncologists, oncology registrars, and radiologists. Acad Radiol 21(6):785–796CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Bosmans JML, Weyler JJ, De Schepper AM, Parizel PM (2011) The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. Radiology 259(1):184–195CrossRefPubMed Bosmans JML, Weyler JJ, De Schepper AM, Parizel PM (2011) The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. Radiology 259(1):184–195CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Ghali Eskander M, Leung A, Lee D (2010) Style and content of CT and MR imaging lumbar spine reports: radiologist and clinician preferences. Am J Neuroradiol 31(10):1842–1847CrossRefPubMed Ghali Eskander M, Leung A, Lee D (2010) Style and content of CT and MR imaging lumbar spine reports: radiologist and clinician preferences. Am J Neuroradiol 31(10):1842–1847CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Radiologists’ preferences regarding content of prostate MRI reports: a survey of the Society of Abdominal Radiology
Authors
Benjamin Spilseth
Daniel J. Margolis
Sangeet Ghai
Nayana U. Patel
Andrew B. Rosenkrantz
Publication date
01-07-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Abdominal Radiology / Issue 7/2018
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1393-z

Other articles of this Issue 7/2018

Abdominal Radiology 7/2018 Go to the issue