Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology 7/2018

11.11.2017

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

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

Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology | Ausgabe 7/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

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.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat Greer MD, Choyke PL, Turkbey B (2017) PI-RADSv2: how we do it. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:11–23CrossRefPubMed Greer MD, Choyke PL, Turkbey B (2017) PI-RADSv2: how we do it. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:11–23CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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
Metadaten
Titel
Radiologists’ preferences regarding content of prostate MRI reports: a survey of the Society of Abdominal Radiology
verfasst von
Benjamin Spilseth
Daniel J. Margolis
Sangeet Ghai
Nayana U. Patel
Andrew B. Rosenkrantz
Publikationsdatum
11.11.2017
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Abdominal Radiology / Ausgabe 7/2018
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Elektronische ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1393-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2018

Abdominal Radiology 7/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.