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

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.

Interpreting Prostate MRI Reports in the Era of Increasing Prostate MRI Utilization: A Urologist’s Perspective

“…These findings substantiate the notion that the incorporation of prostate MRI reports alongside TNM staging offers valuable staging insights that can significantly contribute to informed clinical decision-making. In accordance with Zhang's [24] research, it was observed that urologists displayed a higher degree of satisfaction with reports incorporating TNM staging as opposed to reports containing solely PIRADS information.…”

“…Beyond the imperative of diagnostic accuracy, clinicians place a premium on linguistic clarity in radiology reports [21,22]. Extensive research has consistently demonstrated that urologists prefer SR within the PIRADS framework [23,24]. The evidence presented here highlights the potential for structured reports to not only streamline reporting practices but also contribute to better patient outcomes, reduced variability in reporting, and improved training for new radiologists.…”