Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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):579–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):390

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):1281–1285

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):16–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 72:177–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18241

  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):1179–1183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Greer MD, Choyke PL, Turkbey B (2017) PI-RADSv2: how we do it. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:11–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):43–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):785–796

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):184–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1842–1847

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Benjamin Spilseth

  2. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA

    Daniel J. Margolis

  3. Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital, Women’s College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Sangeet Ghai

  4. Department of Radiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO, USA

    Nayana U. Patel

  5. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Andrew B. Rosenkrantz

Authors
  1. Benjamin Spilseth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel J. Margolis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sangeet Ghai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nayana U. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew B. Rosenkrantz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Spilseth.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spilseth, B., Margolis, D.J., Ghai, S. et al. Radiologists’ preferences regarding content of prostate MRI reports: a survey of the Society of Abdominal Radiology . Abdom Radiol 43, 1807–1812 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1393-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1393-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation