A Comparison of Radiologists' and Urologists' Opinions Regarding Prostate MRI Reporting: Results From a Survey of Specialty Societies

The purpose of this study is to compare radiologists' and urologists' opinions regarding prostate MRI reporting. Radiologist members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and urologist members of the Society of Urologic Oncology received an electronic survey regarding prostate MRI reportin...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American journal of roentgenology (1976) Vol. 210; no. 1; p. 101
Main Authors: Spilseth, Benjamin, Ghai, Sangeet, Patel, Nayana U, Taneja, Samir S, Margolis, Daniel J, Rosenkrantz, Andrew B
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States 01.01.2018
Subjects:
Attitude of Health Personnel
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Prostatic Diseases - diagnostic imaging
Radiologists
Radiology Information Systems
Surveys and Questionnaires
Urologists
survey
prostate cancer
MRI
PI-RADS
reporting
ISSN:1546-3141, 1546-3141
Online Access:Get more information
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The purpose of this study is to compare radiologists' and urologists' opinions regarding prostate MRI reporting. 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. 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. 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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:1546-3141
1546-3141
DOI:10.2214/AJR.17.18241