Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 43, Issue 7, pp 1807–1812 | Cite as

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

  • Benjamin Spilseth
  • Daniel J. Margolis
  • Sangeet Ghai
  • Nayana U. Patel
  • Andrew B. Rosenkrantz



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


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.


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%).


Radiologists generally deemed a high level of detail warranted in prostate MRI reports. The PI-RADS v2 sector map was disliked for lesion localization.


Prostate MRI PI-RADS Genitourinary Survey Reporting 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

Benjamin Spilseth is a consultant for Nx Thera Inc. Daniel Margolis is a consultant for Blue Earth Diagnostics. Sangeet Ghai receives Grant/Research Support from Insightec and Exact Imaging. Nayana Patel is a consultant for 3D Biopsy, INC. Andrew Rosenkrantz receives book royalties from Thieme Medical Publishers.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was implied by participating in the survey, as approved by the institutional review board.


  1. 1.
    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):579–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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):390CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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):1281–1285CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. (2016) PI-RADS Prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 72:177–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spilseth B, Ghai S, Patel NU, et al. (2017) A comparison of radiologists’ and urologists’ opinions regarding prostate MRI reporting: results from a survey of specialty societies. Am J Roentgenol.
  7. 7.
    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):1179–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greer MD, Choyke PL, Turkbey B (2017) PI-RADSv2: how we do it. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:11–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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):43–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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):785–796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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):184–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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):1842–1847CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Minnesota Medical SchoolMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyWeill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital, Women’s College HospitalUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Colorado School of MedicineDenverUSA
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyNYU Langone Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations