1 Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota Medical School Twin Cities, 420 Delaware St, B212-1 Mayo Memorial Bldg, MMC 292, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
2 Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, ON, Canada.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Jan;210(1):101-107. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18241. Epub 2017 Oct 24.
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.
本研究旨在比较放射科医生和泌尿科医生对前列腺 MRI 报告的意见。
放射学会的放射科医生和泌尿外科学会的泌尿科医生成员收到了一份关于前列腺 MRI 报告的电子调查。
放射学会的回应率为 12%(135/1155),泌尿外科学会的回应率为 8%(54/663)。两个专业的大多数受访者都更喜欢前列腺成像报告和数据系统第 2 版(PI-RADSv2)(放射科医生,84%;泌尿科医生,84%),表明它在他们的机构中使用(放射科医生,84%;泌尿科医生,78%),理解其对患者护理的影响(放射科医生,89%;泌尿科医生,71%),并同意放射科医生正确应用 PI-RADSv2 类别(放射科医生,57%;泌尿科医生,61%)。两个专业都认为 PI-RADSv2 采用的主要障碍是一致的:放射科医生使用 PI-RADSv2 的经验不足(放射科医生,51%;泌尿科医生,51%),泌尿科医生使用 PI-RADSv2 的经验不足(放射科医生,46%;泌尿科医生,51%),以及缺乏标准化模板(放射科医生,47%;泌尿科医生,52%)。两个专业在以下方面存在分歧(p ≤ 0.039):报告是否应包括以下管理建议:靶向活检(放射科医生,58%;泌尿科医生,34%)、随访成像(放射科医生,46%;泌尿科医生,28%)和随访成像的时间间隔(放射科医生,35%;泌尿科医生,16%)。报告风格也存在分歧(p = 0.037):54%的泌尿科医生更喜欢完全结构化的报告,而 53%的放射科医生更喜欢混合结构化和自由文本报告。
尽管认识到采用 PI-RADSv2 的障碍,但放射科医生和泌尿科医生都强烈倾向于使用前列腺 MRI 报告的 PI-RADSv2。泌尿科医生更强烈地倾向于完全结构化的报告,并不同意放射科医生的偏好,即包括管理建议。需要进行放射科医生和泌尿科医生的合作教育努力,以帮助优化前列腺 MRI 报告在患者护理中的效果。