Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Urologist Satisfaction for Different Types of Prostate MRI Reports: A Large Sample Investigation

  • Jinman Zhong (Department of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University) ;
  • Weijun Qin (Department of Urology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University) ;
  • Yu Li (Department of Urology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University) ;
  • Yang Wang (Department of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University) ;
  • Yi Huan (Department of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University) ;
  • Jing Ren (Department of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University)
  • Received : 2019.11.03
  • Accepted : 2020.05.06
  • Published : 2020.12.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate urologist satisfaction on structured prostate MRI reports, including report with tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging (report B) and with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score with/without TNM staging (report C, report with PI-RADS score only [report C-a] and report with PI-RADS score and TNM staging [C-b]) compared with conventional free-text report (report A). Materials and Methods: This was a prospective comparative study. Altogether, 3015 prostate MRI reports including reports A, B, C-a, and C-b were rated by 13 urologists using a 5-point Likert Scale. A questionnaire was used to assess urologist satisfaction based on the following parameters: correctness, practicality, and urologist subjectivity. Kruskal-Wallis H-test followed by Nemenyi test was used to compare urologists' satisfaction parameters for each report type. The rate of urologist-radiologist recalls for each report type was calculated. Results: Reports B and C including its subtypes had higher ratings of satisfaction than report A for overall satisfaction degree, and parameters of correctness, practicality, and subjectivity (p < 0.05). There was a significant difference between report B and C (p < 0.05) in practicality score, but no statistical difference was found in overall satisfaction degree, and correctness and subjectivity scores (p > 0.05). Compared with report C-b (p > 0.05), report B and C-a (p < 0.05) showed a significant difference in overall satisfaction degree and parameters of practicality and subjectivity. In terms of correctness score, neither report C-a nor C-b had a significant difference with report B (p > 0.05). No statistical difference was found between report C-a and C-b in overall satisfaction degree and all three parameters (p > 0.05). The rate of urologist-radiologist recalls for reports A, B, C-a and C-b were 29.1%, 10.8%, 18.1% and 11.2%, respectively. Conclusion: Structured reports, either using TNM or PI-RADS are highly preferred over conventional free-text reports and lead to fewer report-related post-hoc inquiries from urologists.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants NSFC 81370039, NSFC 81220108011) for providing grant support. The authors are grateful for using the facilities of the Medical Imaging Research Center in the department of Radiology of our hospital.

References

  1. Poon PY, McCallum RW, Henkelman MM, Bronskill MJ, Sutcliffe SB, Jewett MA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Radiology 1985;154:143-149  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.154.1.2578070
  2. Lee DJ, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, Emberton M, Ehdaie B. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management and diagnosis of prostate cancer: current applications and strategies. Curr Urol Rep 2014;15:390 
  3. Hegde JV, Chen MH, Mulkern RV, Fennessy FM, D'Amico AV, Tempany CM. Preoperative 3-Tesla multiparametric endorectal magnetic resonance imaging findings and the odds of upgrading and upstaging at radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;85:e101-e107  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.08.032
  4. Gupta RT, Kauffman CR, Polascik TJ, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. The state of prostate MRI in 2013. Oncology (Williston Park) 2013;27:262-270 
  5. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ, et al. Clinical applications of multiparametric MRI within the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Urol Oncol 2013;31:281-284  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.02.004
  6. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
  7. American College of Radiology. PI-RADSTM: Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 2015 version 2. Available at: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/Pi-RADS/PIRADS-V2.pdf. Accessed 14 April, 2015 
  8. Allen B Jr, Levin DC, Brant-Zawadzki M, Lexa FJ, Duszak R Jr. ACR white paper: strategies for radiologists in the era of health care reform and accountable care organizations: a report from the ACR Future Trends Committee. J Am Coll Radiol 2011;8:309-317  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2011.02.011
  9. McLoughlin RF, So CB, Gray RR, Brandt R. Radiology reports: how much descriptive detail is enough? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:803-806  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.165.4.7676970
  10. Johnson AJ, Ying J, Swan JS, Williams LS, Applegate KE, Littenberg B. Improving the quality of radiology reporting: a physician survey to define the target. J Am Coll Radiol 2004;1:497-505  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2004.02.019
  11. Wetterauer C, Winkel DJ, Federer-Gsponer JR, Halla A, Subotic S, Deckart A, et al. Structured reporting of prostate magnetic resonance imaging has the potential to improve interdisciplinary communication. PLoS One 2019;14:e0212444 
  12. American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC cancer staging manual, 8th ed. Chicago, IL; American College of Surgeons, 2007 
  13. Cheng L, Montironi R, Bostwick DG, Lopez-Beltran A, Berney DM. Staging of prostate cancer. Histopathology 2012;60:87-117  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04025.x
  14. Park SY, Jung DC, Oh YT, Cho NH, Choi YD, Rha KH, et al. Prostate cancer: PI-RADS version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers. Radiology 2016;280:108-116  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.16151133
  15. Seo JW, Shin SJ, Taik Oh Y, Jung DC, Cho NH, Choi YD, et al. PI-RADS version 2: detection of clinically significant cancer in patients with biopsy gleason score 6 prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;209:W1-W9  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16981
  16. Tewes S, Mokov N, Hartung D, Schick V, Peters I, Schedl P, et al. Standardized reporting of prostate MRI: comparison of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) version 1 and version 2. PLoS One 2016;11:e0162879 
  17. Wallis A, McCoubrie P. The radiology report--are we getting the message across? Clin Radiol 2011;66:1015-1022  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2011.05.013
  18. Lee B, Whitehead MT. Radiology reports: what you think you're saying and what they think you're saying. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2017;46:186-195  https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2016.11.005
  19. Spilseth B, Ghai S, Patel NU, Taneja SS, Margolis DJ, Rosenkrantz AB. A comparison of radiologists' and urologists' opinions regarding prostate MRI reporting: results from a survey of specialty societies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018;210:101-107 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18241