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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of roentgenology (1976) Jg. 210; H. 1; S. 101 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
United States
01.01.2018
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| ISSN: | 1546-3141, 1546-3141 |
| Online-Zugang: | Weitere Angaben |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Abstract | 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. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | 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. The purpose of this study is to compare radiologists' and urologists' opinions regarding prostate MRI reporting.OBJECTIVEThe 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.SUBJECTS AND METHODSRadiologist 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.RESULTSThe 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.CONCLUSIONRadiologists 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. |
| Author | Taneja, Samir S Ghai, Sangeet Patel, Nayana U Rosenkrantz, Andrew B Margolis, Daniel J Spilseth, Benjamin |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Benjamin surname: Spilseth fullname: Spilseth, Benjamin organization: 1 Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota Medical School Twin Cities, 420 Delaware St, B212-1 Mayo Memorial Bldg, MMC 292, Minneapolis, MN 55455 – sequence: 2 givenname: Sangeet surname: Ghai fullname: Ghai, Sangeet organization: 2 Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, ON, Canada – sequence: 3 givenname: Nayana U surname: Patel fullname: Patel, Nayana U organization: 3 Department of Radiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO – sequence: 4 givenname: Samir S surname: Taneja fullname: Taneja, Samir S organization: 4 Department of Urologic Oncology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY – sequence: 5 givenname: Daniel J surname: Margolis fullname: Margolis, Daniel J organization: 5 Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY – sequence: 6 givenname: Andrew B surname: Rosenkrantz fullname: Rosenkrantz, Andrew B organization: 6 Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29064758$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpNUM1LwzAcDTJxH3rzLLnppTPJ0qb1NobTyWSyuXP5tf11RNqmJqmwP8D_24kTPb0PHu_BG5JeYxok5JKzsRBc3k6f1mOuxjwWkp-QAQ9lFEy45L1_vE-Gzr0xxlScqDPSFwmLpArjAfmc0pmpW7DamYaakq6h0KYyO-28u6bQFHRr__Sq1Y02jaNr3IEtdLOjL9Y4Dx7p83pxsFtj_cG-O1DXVd7RuTU1Bbrp7Afuvxc2LeYaKr-nG5Nr9BrdOTktoXJ4ccQR2c7vX2ePwXL1sJhNl0EuEu4DUCKGMMM8gwSZAsA4hrwoQXKlikxlJUdkPCoAZBwxnscYKQijhE8UJFKKEbn56W2tee_Q-bTWLseqggZN51KehGHEBGfhIXp1jHZZjUXaWl2D3ae_14kvMZVzkA |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1007_s00261_017_1393_z crossref_primary_10_1097_01_CDR_0000802024_06098_86 crossref_primary_10_1159_000508755 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jacr_2022_02_030 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00345_024_04967_6 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_rcl_2023_06_007 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eururo_2019_02_033 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00261_020_02738_6 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_acra_2022_06_024 crossref_primary_10_3348_kjr_2023_0644 crossref_primary_10_3390_diagnostics14101060 crossref_primary_10_1067_j_cpradiol_2020_10_014 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejrad_2021_109954 crossref_primary_10_1097_RCT_0000000000001142 crossref_primary_10_3348_jksr_2022_0169 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00261_020_02424_7 crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers17132122 crossref_primary_10_1067_j_cpradiol_2024_04_002 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00345_022_04102_3 crossref_primary_10_1053_j_sult_2024_11_002 crossref_primary_10_3348_kjr_2019_0820 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0212444 crossref_primary_10_1177_08465371221105532 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00261_020_02744_8 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinimag_2019_12_010 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eururo_2018_05_035 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00261_020_02720_2 crossref_primary_10_1016_S1879_8543_25_80002_8 crossref_primary_10_1146_annurev_med_053117_123215 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00261_018_1751_5 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.2214/AJR.17.18241 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1546-3141 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 29064758 |
| Genre | Journal Article Comparative Study |
| GroupedDBID | --- -DD .55 .GJ 1CY 1KJ 23M 2WC 34G 39C 3O- 53G 5GY 5RE AAEJM AAWTL ABOCM ADBBV AENEX AFFNX AI. AJJEV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS BAWUL C1A CGR CS3 CUY CVF DIK E3Z EBS ECM EIF EJD F5P GX1 H13 J5H L7B LSO MJL NPM P2P SJN TR2 TRR TWZ UDS VH1 W2D W8F WH7 WOQ X7M YJK YQI YQJ ZGI ZVN ZXP 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-a728a5becba9e07aae88acdfa4177db7bf1ee016daa48601c8e67a569137a9442 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 33 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000418427200026&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1546-3141 |
| IngestDate | Sun Nov 09 09:38:39 EST 2025 Mon Jul 21 06:02:51 EDT 2025 |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 1 |
| Keywords | survey prostate cancer MRI PI-RADS reporting |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c291t-a728a5becba9e07aae88acdfa4177db7bf1ee016daa48601c8e67a569137a9442 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 |
| PMID | 29064758 |
| PQID | 1955602105 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1955602105 pubmed_primary_29064758 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2018-Jan 20180101 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2018-01-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 01 year: 2018 text: 2018-Jan |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
| PublicationTitle | American journal of roentgenology (1976) |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | AJR Am J Roentgenol |
| PublicationYear | 2018 |
| SSID | ssj0007897 |
| Score | 2.4126158 |
| Snippet | The purpose of this study is to compare radiologists' and urologists' opinions regarding prostate MRI reporting.
Radiologist members of the Society of... The purpose of this study is to compare radiologists' and urologists' opinions regarding prostate MRI reporting.OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study is to... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | 101 |
| SubjectTerms | Attitude of Health Personnel Humans Magnetic Resonance Imaging Male Prostatic Diseases - diagnostic imaging Radiologists Radiology Information Systems Surveys and Questionnaires Urologists |
| Title | A Comparison of Radiologists' and Urologists' Opinions Regarding Prostate MRI Reporting: Results From a Survey of Specialty Societies |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29064758 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1955602105 |
| Volume | 210 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000418427200026&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV3dS8MwEA_qRHzx-2N-EUHwqbp0SZP4IkMcKm6O6WRv45amY6DtXDfBP8D_20tb3ZMg-FLaQtOSu979cne5HyEn2hgmpWSeElZ53HXW7hstPK5N1fiqYvws3vF8L5tN1e3qVhFwS4uyym-bmBnqMDEuRn7OtEDnjAsUcTl68xxrlMuuFhQa86RURSjjtFp2Z93CpcrJVQQP0NZwlhe--z7j57W79hmTZ4iuOfsdXGZOpr76389bIysFvKS1XB_WyZyNN8hSo0igb5LPGr36YR6kSUTbEGYbVlDa6SmFOKSd8ez6YTSMnV7Sth04VYoHtOW2iSBApY32Lc3hO96-wNN0-jJJaX2cvFKgj9Pxu_1wbygY7icfNK8QxaX5FunUr5-ubryCicEzvmYTD6SvQKC4-6BtRQJYpcCEEXAUdNiX_YhZi-AxBHCkVswoG0gQgWZVCZpzf5ssxElsdwllshJpw6VAIMghQu-IQ0sdijBgEBhVJsffE9xDTXfpC4htMk17sykuk51cSr1R3pKj55rW45hq7w9P75NlRD0qj6MckFKE_7k9JIvmfTJMx0eZCuGx2Wp8AZvG0V0 |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A+Comparison+of+Radiologists%27+and+Urologists%27+Opinions+Regarding+Prostate+MRI+Reporting%3A+Results+From+a+Survey+of+Specialty+Societies&rft.jtitle=American+journal+of+roentgenology+%281976%29&rft.au=Spilseth%2C+Benjamin&rft.au=Ghai%2C+Sangeet&rft.au=Patel%2C+Nayana+U&rft.au=Taneja%2C+Samir+S&rft.date=2018-01-01&rft.eissn=1546-3141&rft.volume=210&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=101&rft_id=info:doi/10.2214%2FAJR.17.18241&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F29064758&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F29064758&rft.externalDocID=29064758 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1546-3141&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1546-3141&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1546-3141&client=summon |