Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]845111
• Clinical Article •
Investigation of urologist satisfaction to three types of prostate MRI reports
ZHONG Jinman  QIN Weijun  LI Yu  WANG Yang  HUAN Yi  REN Jing 

Cite this article as: Zhong JM, Qin WJ, Li Y, et al. Investigation of urologist satisfaction to three types of prostate MRI reports. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 10(6): 425-429. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2019.06.006.


[Abstract] Objective: To evaluate urologist satisfaction on the structured prostate MRI reports including report with TNM staging (report B) and report with PI-RADSTM v2 score with or without TNM staging (report C) compared with conventional free-text report (report A) in terms of correctness, practicality and subjective feeling of urologists.Materials and Methods: From October 2007 to December 2018, 3381 prostate MRI reports including report A, report B and report C were rated by 13 urologists using a 5-point Likert scales. A questionnaire was used to assess urologist satisfaction based on the following parameters: correctness, practicality and subjective feeling of urologists. Kruskal-Wallis H-test followed by Nemenyi test was used to compare urologists’ satisfaction parameters for each type of prostate MRI report.Results: The overall satisfaction degree of urologists to report B and report C were both significantly higher than that to report A (both P<0.05), but no statistical difference was found in the overall satisfaction degree between report B and report C (P>0.05). There was significant difference regarding the parameter of practicality between report B and report C (P<0.05), but no statistical difference was found regarding correctness and subjectivity (both P>0.05). Both report B and report C had significantly higher rating of satisfaction than report A for each parameter (All P<0.05).Conclusions: Both structured prostate MRI reports including report B and report C can add up urologist satisfaction allowing some advantages over the report A.
[Keywords] magnetic resonance imaging；prostate cancer；radiology report；prostate imaging reporting and data system；TNM staging system

ZHONG Jinman Department of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Medical University, Xi’an 710032, China

QIN Weijun Department of Urology, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Medical University, Xi’an 710032, China

LI Yu Department of Urology, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Medical University, Xi’an 710032, China

WANG Yang Department of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Medical University, Xi’an 710032, China

HUAN Yi Department of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Medical University, Xi’an 710032, China

REN Jing* Department of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Medical University, Xi’an 710032, China

*Correspondence to: Ren J, E-mail: jrenmm@126.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  This work was part of National Natural Science Foundation of China No.81370039, 81220108011
Received  2019-02-20
Accepted  2019-04-30
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2019.06.006
Cite this article as: Zhong JM, Qin WJ, Li Y, et al. Investigation of urologist satisfaction to three types of prostate MRI reports. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 10(6): 425-429. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2019.06.006.

[1]
Barrett T, Haider MA. The emerging role of MRI in prostate cancer active surveillance and ongoing challenges. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2017, 208(1): 131-139.
[2]
Ullrich T, Schimmoller L, Oymanns M, et al. Current utilization and acceptance of multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. A regional survey. Rofo, 2018, 190(5): 419-426.
[3]
Manfredi M, Mele F, Garrou D, et al. Multiparametric prostate MRI: technical conduct, standardized report and clinical use. Minerva Urol Nefrol, 2018, 70(1): 9-21.
[4]
ACR, ESUR, AdMeTech Foundation. Prostate imaging and reporting and data system: Version 2. 2014.(2015-04-14)[2019-02-28]. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/Pi-RADS/PIRADS-V2.pdf.
[5]
Ganeshan D, Duong PT, Probyn L, et al. Structured reporting in radiology. Acad Radiol, 2018, 25(1): 66-73.
[6]
Buyyounouski MK, Choyke PL, Mckenney JK, et al. Prostate cancer-major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin, 2017, 67(3): 245-253.
[7]
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol, 2016, 69(1): 16-40.
[8]
Tewes S, Mokov N, Hartung D, 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(9): e162879.
[9]
Barrett T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL. PI-RADS version 2: what you need to know. Clin Radiol, 2015, 70(11): 1165-1176.
[10]
Maros ME, Wenz R, Forster A, et al. Objective comparison using guideline-based query of conventional radiological reports and structured reports. In Vivo, 2018, 32(4): 843-849.
[11]
Wallis A, Mccoubrie P. The radiology report - are we getting the message across?. Clin Radiol, 2011, 66(11): 1015-1022.
[12]
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(3): 186-195.

PREV Correlation of mammography, MRI features and molecular typing of breast cancer
NEXT The difference of surrounding edema between benign tmor-tumor-like lesions and malignant tumors: Evaluated by MRI
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn