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