1. Radiologists' preferences regarding content of prostate MRI reports: a survey of the Society of Abdominal Radiology.
- Author
-
Spilseth B, Margolis DJ, Ghai S, Patel NU, and Rosenkrantz AB
- Subjects
- Humans, Male, Prospective Studies, Prostate diagnostic imaging, Societies, Medical, Attitude of Health Personnel, Magnetic Resonance Imaging methods, Medical Records statistics & numerical data, Prostatic Neoplasms diagnostic imaging, Radiologists statistics & numerical data, Surveys and Questionnaires statistics & numerical data
- 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.
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF