|
KMID : 0880420200210121326
|
|
Korean Journal of Radiology
2020 Volume.21 No. 12 p.1326 ~ p.1333
|
|
|
Comparison of Urologist Satisfaction for Different Types of Prostate MRI Reports: A Large Sample Investigation
|
|
Zhong Jinman
Qin Weijun
Li Yu
Wang Yang
Huan Yi
Ren Jing
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Magnetic resonance imaging, Prostate cancer, Radiology report, Prostate imaging reporting and data system, TNM staging system
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
 
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
    
|
|