A comparison of radiologists' and urologists' opinions regarding prostate MRI reporting: Results from a survey of specialty societies

Benjamin Spilseth, Sangeet Ghai, Nayana U. Patel, Samir S. Taneja, Daniel J. Margolis, Andrew B. Rosenkrantz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

18 Scopus citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to compare radiologists' and urologists' opinions regarding prostate MRI reporting. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Radiologist members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and urologist members of the Society of Urologic Oncology received an electronic survey regarding prostate MRI reporting. RESULTS. The response rate was 12% (135/1155) for Society of Abdominal Radiology and 8% (54/663) for Society of Urologic Oncology members. Most respondents in both specialties prefer Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) (radiologists, 84%; urologists, 84%), indicate that it is used at their institution (radiologists, 84%; urologists, 78%), understand its implications for patient care (radiologists, 89%; urologists, 71%), and agree that radiologists apply PI-RADSv2 categories correctly (radiologists, 57%; urologists, 61%). Both specialties agreed regarding major barriers to PI-RADSv2 adoption: radiologist inexperience using PI-RADSv2 (radiologists, 51%; urologists, 51%), urologist inexperience using PI-RADSv2 (radiologists, 46%; urologists, 51%), and lack of standardized templates (radiologists, 47%; urologists, 52%). The specialties disagreed (p = 0.039) regarding whether reports should include the following management recommendations: targeted biopsy (radiologists, 58%; urologists, 34%), follow-up imaging (radiologists, 46%; urologists, 28%), and time interval for follow-up imaging (radiologists, 35%; urologists, 16%). There was also disagreement (p = 0.037) regarding report style: 54% of urologists preferred fully structured reports, whereas 53% of radiologists preferred hybrid structured and free-text reports. CONCLUSION. Radiologists and urologists both strongly prefer PI-RADSv2 for prostate MRI reporting, despite recognizing barriers to its adoption. Urologists more strongly preferred a fully structured report and disagreed with radiologists' preference to include management recommendations. Collaborative radiologist-urologist educational efforts are warranted to help optimize the effect of prostate MRI reporting in patient care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)101-107
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume210
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2018

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
B. Spilseth is a consultant for Nx Thera. S. Ghai has received grant and research support from Insightec and Exact Imaging. N. U. Patel is a consultant for 3D Biopsy, Inc. S. S. Taneja is an uncompensated scientific investigator for Trod Medical and serves as a consultant for and has received travel support from Biobot. D. J. Margolis is a consultant for Blue Earth Diagnostics. A. B. Rosenkrantz has received book royalties from Thieme Medical Publishers.

Publisher Copyright:
�© American Roentgen Ray Society.

Copyright:
Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

Keywords

  • MRI
  • PI-RADS
  • Prostate cancer
  • Reporting
  • Survey

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of radiologists' and urologists' opinions regarding prostate MRI reporting: Results from a survey of specialty societies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this