Impact of a Structured Reporting Template on Adherence to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 and on the Diagnostic Performance of Prostate MRI for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

The importance and future of prostate MRI report templates: improving oncological care

The radiologist's report is crucial for guiding care post-imaging, with ongoing advancements in report construction. Recent studies across various modalities and organ systems demonstrate enhanced clarity and communication through structured reports. This article will explain the benefits of disease-state specific reporting templates using prostate MRI as the model system. We identify key reporting components for prostate cancer detection and staging as well as imaging in active surveillance and following therapy. We discuss relevant reporting systems including PI-QUAL, PI-RADS, PRECISE, PI-RR and PI-FAB systems. Additionally, we examine optimal reporting structure including disruptive technologies such as graphical reporting and using artificial intelligence to improve report clarity and applicability.

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

Multi-parametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) is crucial for diagnosing, staging, and assessing treatment response in individuals with prostate cancer. Radiologists, through an accurate and standardized interpretation of mpMRI, stratify patients who may benefit from more invasive treatment or exclude patients who may be harmed by overtreatment. The integration of prostate MRI into the diagnostic pathway is anticipated to generate a substantial surge in the demand for high-quality mpMRI, estimated at approximately two million additional prostate MRI scans annually in Europe. In this review we examine the immediate impact on healthcare, particularly focusing on the workload and evolving roles of radiologists and urologists tasked with the interpretation of these reports and consequential decisions regarding prostate biopsies. We investigate important questions that influence how prostate MRI reports are handled. The discussion aims to provide insights into the collaboration needed for effective reporting.

Imaging 3.0: A scoping review

We aim to provide a comprehensive summary of the current body of literature concerning the Imaging 3.0 initiative and its implications for patient care within the field of radiology. We offer a thorough analysis of the literature pertaining to the Imaging 3.0 initiative, emphasizing the practical application of the five pillars of the program, their cost-effectiveness, and their benefits in patient management. By doing so, we hope to illustrate the impact the Imaging 3.0 Initiative can have on the future of radiology and patient care.

Do we need MRI in all biopsy naïve patients? A multicenter cohort analysis

PURPOSE

The combined approach (CB) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy (TB) and systematic biopsy (SB) is strongly recommended based on numerous studies in biopsy naïve men with suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCA). However, the unbalanced accessibility of MRI, challenges related to reimbursement and the scarcity of specialized medical practitioners continue to impede a widespread implementation. Therefore, our objective was to determine a subset of men that could undergo SB without an increased risk of underdiagnosis at reduced expenses.

METHODS

A multicenter analysis of 2714 men with confirmed PCA and suspicious MRI who underwent CB were enrolled. Cancer detection rates were compared between the different biopsy routes SB, TB and CB using McNemar paired test. Additionally, Gleason grade up- and down-grading was determined.

RESULTS

CB detected more csPCA than TB and SB (p < 0.001), irrespective of MRI findings or biopsy route (transperineal vs. transrectal). Thereby, single biopsy approaches misgraded > 50% of csPCA. TB showed higher diagnostic efficiency, defined as csPCA detection per biopsy core than CB and SB (p < 0.001). For patients with abnormal DRE and PSA levels > 12.5 ng/ml, PSAD > 0.35 ng/ml/cm3, or > 75 years, SB and CB showed similar csPCA detection rates.

CONCLUSION

Conducting CB provides the highest level of diagnostic certainty and minimizes the risk of underdiagnosis in almost all biopsy-naive men. However, in patients with suspicious DRE and high PSA levels, PSAD, or advanced age solely using SB leads to similar csPCA detection rates. Thus, a reduced biopsy protocol may be considered for these men in case resources are limited.

Interpretation of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System Version 2.1: A Primer

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly being used to diagnose and stage prostate cancer. The Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 is a consensus-based reporting system that provides a standardized and reproducible method for interpreting prostate MRI. This primer provides an overview of the PI-RADS system, focusing on its current role in clinical interpretation. It discusses the appropriate use of PI-RADS and how it should be applied by radiologists in clinical practice to assign and report PI-RADS assessments. We also discuss the changes from prior versions and published validation studies on PI-RADS accuracy and reproducibility.

Current magnetic resonance imaging-based diagnostic strategies for prostate cancer

Recent developments in multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy have made it possible to detect clinically significant cancers more accurately and efficiently than ever before. Furthermore, software that enables easy MRI/US image fusion has been developed and is already available on the market, and this has provided a tailwind for the spread of MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic strategies. Such precise diagnosis of prostate cancer localization is essential for highly accurate focal therapy. In addition, a recent large-scale study applying MRI to community screening for prostate cancer has reported its usefulness. By contrast, concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment, the existence of inter-reader variability in MRI diagnosis, and issues with current MRI-targeted biopsy have emerged. In this article, we review the development of multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy to date and the current issues and discuss future directions.

[Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v 2.1: Overview and Critical Points]

The technical parameters and imaging interpretation criteria of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) are updated in PI-RADS v2.1. These changes have been an expected improvement for prostate cancer evaluation, although some issues remain unsolved, and new issues have been raised. In this review, a brief overview of PI-RADS v2.1 is and several critical points are discussed as follows: the need for more detailed protocols of mpMRI, lack of validation of the revised transition zone interpretation criteria, the need for clarification for the revised diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging criteria, anterior fibromuscular stroma and central zone assessment, assessment of background signal and tumor aggressiveness, changes in the structured report, the need for the parameters for imaging quality and performance control, and indications for expansion of the system to include other indications.

Quality checkpoints in the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is now recommended as the initial diagnostic test for men presenting with suspected prostate cancer, with a negative MRI enabling safe avoidance of biopsy and a positive result enabling MRI-directed sampling of lesions. The diagnostic pathway consists of several steps, from initial patient presentation and preparation to performing and interpreting MRI, communicating the imaging findings, outlining the prostate and intra-prostatic target lesions, performing the biopsy and assessing the cores. Each component of this pathway requires experienced clinicians, optimized equipment, good inter-disciplinary communication between specialists, and standardized workflows in order to achieve the expected outcomes. Assessment of quality and mitigation measures are essential for the success of the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Quality assurance processes including Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System, template biopsy, and pathology guidelines help to minimize variation and ensure optimization of the diagnostic pathway. Quality control systems including the Prostate Imaging Quality scoring system, patient-level outcomes (such as Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System MRI score assignment and cancer detection rates), multidisciplinary meeting review and audits might also be used to provide consistency of outcomes and ensure that all the benefits of the MRI-directed pathway are achieved.

Universal Liver Imaging Lexicon: Imaging Atlas for Research and Clinical Practice

The use of standardized terms in assessing and reporting disease processes has well-established benefits, such as clear communication between radiologists and other health care providers, improved diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility, and the enhancement and facilitation of research. Recently, the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Steering Committee released a universal liver imaging lexicon. The current version of the lexicon includes 81 vetted and precisely defined terms that are relevant to acquisition of images using all major liver imaging modalities and contrast agents, as well as lesion- and organ-level features. Most terms in the lexicon are applicable to all patients undergoing imaging of the liver, and only a minority of the terms are strictly intended to be used for patients with high risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma. This pictorial atlas familiarizes readers with the liver imaging lexicon and includes discussion of general concepts, providing sample definitions, schematics, and clinical examples for a subset of the terms in the liver imaging lexicon. The authors discuss general, technical, and imaging feature terms used commonly in liver imaging, with the goal of illustrating their use for clinical and research applications. Work of the U.S. Government published under an exclusive license with the RSNA. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Utility of a Rule-Based Algorithm in the Assessment of Standardized Reporting in PI-RADS

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Adoption of the Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) has been shown to increase detection of clinically significant prostate cancer on prostate mpMRI. We propose that a rule-based algorithm based on Regular Expression (RegEx) matching can be used to automatically categorize prostate mpMRI reports into categories as a means by which to assess for opportunities for quality improvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All prostate mpMRIs performed in the Duke University Health System from January 2, 2015, to January 29, 2021, were analyzed. Exclusion criteria were applied, for a total of 5343 male patients and 6264 prostate mpMRI reports. These reports were then analyzed by our RegEx algorithm to be categorized as PI-RADS 1 through PI-RADS 5, Recurrent Disease, or "No Information Available." A stratified, random sample of 502 mpMRI reports was reviewed by a blinded clinical team to assess performance of the RegEx algorithm.

RESULTS

Compared to manual review, the RegEx algorithm achieved overall accuracy of 92.6%, average precision of 88.8%, average recall of 85.6%, and F1 score of 0.871. The clinical team also reviewed 344 cases that were classified as "No Information Available," and found that in 150 instances, no numerical PI-RADS score for any lesion was included in the impression section of the mpMRI report.

CONCLUSION

Rule-based processing is an accurate method for the large-scale, automated extraction of PI-RADS scores from the text of radiology reports. These natural language processing approaches can be used for future initiatives in quality improvement in prostate mpMRI reporting with PI-RADS.

Structured reporting in radiology: a systematic review to explore its potential

OBJECTIVES

Structured reporting (SR) in radiology reporting is suggested to be a promising tool in clinical practice. In order to implement such an emerging innovation, it is necessary to verify that radiology reporting can benefit from SR. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to explore the level of evidence of structured reporting in radiology. Additionally, this review provides an overview on the current status of SR in radiology.

METHODS

A narrative systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using the syntax 'radiol*' AND 'structur*' AND 'report*'. Structured reporting was divided in SR level 1, structured layout (use of templates and checklists), and SR level 2, structured content (a drop-down menu, point-and-click or clickable decision trees). Two reviewers screened the search results and included all quantitative experimental studies that discussed SR in radiology. A thematic analysis was performed to appraise the evidence level.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 63 relevant full text articles out of a total of 8561 articles. Thematic analysis resulted in 44 SR level 1 and 19 level 2 reports. Only one paper was scored as highest level of evidence, which concerned a double cohort study with randomized trial design.

CONCLUSION

The level of evidence for implementing SR in radiology is still low and outcomes should be interpreted with caution.

KEY POINTS

• Structured reporting is increasingly being used in radiology, especially in abdominal and neuroradiological CT and MRI reports. • SR can be subdivided into structured layout (SR level 1) and structured content (SR level 2), in which the first is defined as being a template in which the reporter has to report; the latter is an IT-based manner in which the content of the radiology report can be inserted and displayed into the report. • Despite the extensive amount of research on the subject of structured reporting, the level of evidence is low.

Quality in MR reporting of the prostate – improving acquisition, the role of AI and future perspectives

The high quality of MRI reporting of the prostate is the most critical component of the service provided by a radiologist. Prostate MRI structured reporting with PI-RADS v. 2.1 has been proven to improve consistency, quality, guideline-based care in the management of prostate cancer. There is room for improved accuracy of prostate mpMRI reporting, particularly as PI-RADS core criteria are subjective for radiologists. The application of artificial intelligence may support radiologists in interpreting MRI scans. This review addresses the quality of prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) structured reporting (include improvements in acquisition using artificial intelligence) in terms of size of prostate gland, imaging quality, lesion location, lesion size, TNM staging, sector map, and discusses the future prospects of quality in MR reporting.

[Current developments on digitalization : Analysis of quality and economics in healthcare]

Hintergrund

Im deutschen Gesundheitssystem und damit auch im Fachgebiet der Urologie gewinnen ökonomische Rahmenbedingungen zunehmend an Bedeutung und parallel dazu werden digitale Anwendungen vermehrt eingesetzt.

Fragestellung

Die Fragestellung betrifft die gesundheitsökonomische Auseinandersetzung mit den Rahmenbedingungen der Digitalisierung im deutschen Gesundheitssystem sowie ausgewählter Anwendungsbereiche in der Urologie.

Material und Methoden

Das Gutachten des Sachverständigenrates zur Begutachtung der Entwicklung im Gesundheitswesen (SVR) wird analysiert und eine systematische Literaturanalyse zum Einsatz der strukturierten Befundung und Analyse ausgewählter Literatur zu telemedizinischen Anwendungen in der Urologie unter gesundheitsökonomischen Gesichtspunkten durchgeführt.

Ergebnisse

Als zentrale Hemmnisse bei der Digitalisierung des deutschen Gesundheitswesens identifiziert der SVR dessen Regulierung und Komplexität sowie den Umgang mit Datenschutz und -sicherheit. Der Einsatz strukturierter Befundung kann Qualität, Effektivität und Effizienz der Befundung in der Urologie steigern. Im Hinblick auf die Kosten können signifikante Einsparungen mit zunehmender Digitalisierung in der Medizin realisiert werden.

Schlussfolgerungen

Aus medizinischer und gesundheitsökonomischer Perspektive besteht bei der Ausgestaltung von Rahmenbedingungen für digitale Anwendungen im deutschen Gesundheitssystem hinsichtlich der Informationssicherheit und des Datenschutzes weiterer Gestaltungsbedarf. Bei zielgerichtetem Einsatz von digitalen Anwendungen wie der strukturierten Befundung und der Telemedizin können optimale Voraussetzungen für den zunehmenden Einsatz von künstlicher Intelligenz im Fachgebiet der Urologie geschaffen werden.

State of the art in abdominal MRI structured reporting: a review

In the management of several abdominal disorders, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to significantly improve patient's outcome due to its diagnostic accuracy leading to more appropriate treatment choice. However, its clinical value heavily relies on the quality and quantity of diagnostic information that radiologists manage to convey through their reports. To solve issues such as ambiguity and lack of comprehensiveness that can occur with conventional narrative reports, the adoption of structured reporting has been proposed. Using a checklist and standardized lexicon, structured reports are designed to increase clarity while assuring that all key imaging findings related to a specific disorder are included. Unfortunately, structured reports have their limitations too, such as risk of undue report simplification and poor template plasticity. Their adoption is also far from widespread, and probably the ideal balance between radiologist autonomy and report consistency of has yet to be found. In this article, we aimed to provide an overview of structured reporting proposals for abdominal MRI and of works assessing its value in comparison to conventional free-text reporting. While for several abdominal disorders there are structured templates that have been endorsed by scientific societies and their adoption might be beneficial, stronger evidence confirming their imperativeness and added value in terms of clinical practice is needed, especially regarding the improvement of patient outcome.

Diagnostic pathway of the biopsy-naïve patient suspected for prostate cancer: Real-life scenario when multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging is not centralized

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to compare the pathway including multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) versus the one without mpMRI in detection of prostate cancer (PCa) when mpMRI is not centralized.

MATERIALS

January 2019-March 2020: prospective data collection of trans-perineal prostate biopsies. Group A: biopsy-naïve patients who underwent mpMRI (at any institution) versus Group B: patients who did not. Within Group A, patients were stratified into those with negative mpMRI (mpMRI-, PIRADS v2.1=1-3, with PSA density <0.15 if PIRADS 3) who underwent standard biopsy (SB), versus those with positive mpMRI (mpMRI+, when PIRADS 3-5, with PSA density>0.15 if PIRADS 3) who underwent cognitive fusion biopsy.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighty one biopsies were analyzed. 153 patients underwent mpMRI (Group A). 98 mpMRI+ underwent fusion biopsy; 55 mpMRI- underwent SB. 128 Group B patients underwent SB. Overall PCa detection rate was 52.3% vs. 48.4% (Group A vs. B, P=0.5). Non-clinically-significant PCa was detected in 7.8 vs. 13.3% (Group A vs. B, P=0.1). Among the 98 mpMRI+ Group A patients only 2 had non clinically-significant disease. In 55 mpMRI- patients who underwent SB, 10 (18.2%) had clinically-significant PCa. Prostate volume predicted detection of PCa. In Group B, age and PSA predicted PCa. Sensitivity of mpMRI was 75.0% for all PCa, 85.3% for clinically-significant PCa.

CONCLUSION

Higher detection of PCa and lower detection of non-clinically-significant PCa favored mpMRI pathway. A consistent number of clinically-significant PCa was diagnosed after a mpMRI-. Thus, in real-life scenario, mpMRI- does not obviate indication to biopsy when mpMRI is not centralized.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Structured prostate MRI reporting: how and why

Over the past decade, the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) has revolutionized the manner in which prostate cancer is screened for, detected, biopsied, and managed. The single greatest contribution of PI-RADS has been the standardization of interpretation and reporting of findings on MRI of the prostate. This standardization has led to the wide acceptance of the PI-RADS lexicon at a time when structured reporting templates are becoming more widespread in radiology and other medical fields. The author reviews the benefits of structured reporting templates with a focus on prostate MRI, prior studies on this topic, and details of a suggested template.

PI-RADS Version 2.1: A Critical Review, From the AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems

PI-RADS version 2.1 updates the technical parameters for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate and revises the imaging interpretation criteria while maintaining the framework introduced in version 2. These changes have been considered an improvement, although some issues remain unresolved, and new issues have emerged. Areas for improvement discussed in this review include the need for more detailed mpMRI protocols with optimization for 1.5-T and 3-T systems; lack of validation of revised transition zone interpretation criteria and need for clarifications of the revised DWI and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging criteria and central zone (CZ) assessment; the need for systematic evaluation and reporting of background changes in signal intensity in the prostate that can negatively affect cancer detection; creation of a new category for lesions that do not fit into the PI-RADS assessment categories (i.e., PI-RADS M category); inclusion of quantitative parameters beyond size to evaluate lesion aggressiveness; adjustments to the structured report template, including standardized assessment of the risk of extraprostatic extension; development of parameters for image quality and performance control; and suggestions for expansion of the system to other indications (e.g., active surveillance and recurrence).

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

OBJECTIVE

To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2016 and 2020. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. Risk-adapted screening should be offered to men at increased risk from the age of 45 yr and to breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, who have been confirmed to be at risk of early and aggressive disease (mainly BRAC2), from around 40 yr of age. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is performed, a combination of targeted and systematic biopsies must be offered. There is currently no place for the routine use of tissue-based biomarkers. Whilst prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography is the most sensitive staging procedure, the lack of outcome benefit remains a major limitation. Active surveillance (AS) should always be discussed with low-risk patients, as well as with selected intermediate-risk patients with favourable International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the AS journey and the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term hormonal treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Updated prostate cancer guidelines are presented, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. These guidelines rely on the available scientific evidence, and new insights will need to be considered and included on a regular basis. In some cases, the supporting evidence for new treatment options is not yet strong enough to provide a recommendation, which is why continuous updating is important. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on the most optimal management for them.

Innovative standardized reporting template for prostate mpMRI improves clarity and confidence in the report

PURPOSE

The goal of the current study was to evaluate the effect of a standardized prostate mpMRI reporting template on urologists' understanding and confidence in counselling a patient on the results of the MRI. To do this we performed a survey study to assess the understanding and confidence of urologists reviewing reports prior to (pre) and after (post) adoption of a standardized mpMRI template.

METHODS

Six urologists reviewed ten pre- and post- mpMRI templated reports and completed a survey to assess the clarity of key elements and the confidence in counseling the patient. The urologists were blinded to the study objective. Nonparametric constrained permutation test for significance was performed to compare the results prior to and after implementation of the template.

RESULTS

29 pre- and 30 post-template mpMRI reports were reviewed. The average score for the post-template reports was significantly higher (10.7 ± 0.6 vs 7.5 ± 2.7 [ p< 0.001]) regardless of the reviewer. Urologists were also overall more confident in counselling patients when the standardized mpMRI reporting template had been used.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a standardized template for reporting of prostate mpMRI findings resulted in improved clarity and confidence in counselling patients. Radiologists should consider implementing a standardized reporting template to improve clinicians' understanding and confidence of the report.

Adding Value in Radiology Reporting

The major goal of the radiology report is to deliver timely, accurate, and actionable information to the patient care team and the patient. Structured reporting offers multiple advantages over traditional free-text reporting, including reduction in diagnostic error, comprehensiveness, adherence to national consensus guidelines, revenue capture, data collection, and research. Various technological innovations enhance integration of structured reporting into everyday clinical practice. This review discusses the benefits of innovations in radiology reporting to the clinical decision process, the patient experience, the cost of imaging, and the overall contributions to the health of the population. Future directions, including the use of artificial intelligence, are reviewed.

Implementing Structured Clinical Templates at a Single Tertiary Hospital: Survey Study

Background

Electronic health record (EHR) systems have been widely adopted in hospitals. However, since current EHRs mainly focus on lowering the number of paper documents used, they have suffered from poor search function and reusability capabilities. To overcome these drawbacks, structured clinical templates have been proposed; however, they are not widely used owing to the inconvenience of data entry.

Objective

This study aims to verify the usability of structured templates by comparing data entry times.

Methods

A Korean tertiary hospital has implemented structured clinical templates with the modeling of clinical contents for the last 6 years. As a result, 1238 clinical content models (ie, body measurements, vital signs, and allergies) have been developed and 492 models for 13 clinical templates, including pathology reports, were applied to EHRs for clinical practice. Then, to verify the usability of the structured templates, data entry times from free-texts and four structured pathology report templates were compared using 4391 entries from structured data entry (SDE) log data and 4265 entries from free-text log data. In addition, a paper-based survey and a focus group interview were conducted with 23 participants from three different groups, including EHR developers, pathology transcriptionists, and clinical data extraction team members.

Results

Based on the analysis of time required for data entry, in most cases, beginner users of the structured clinical templates required at most 70.18% more time for data entry. However, as users became accustomed to the templates, they were able to enter data more quickly than via free-text entry: at least 1 minute and 23 seconds (16.8%) up to 5 minutes and 42 seconds (27.6%). Interestingly, well-designed thyroid cancer pathology reports required 14.54% less data entry time from the beginning of the SDE implementation. In the interviews and survey, we confirmed that most of the interviewees agreed on the need for structured templates. However, they were skeptical about structuring all the items included in the templates.

Conclusions

The increase in initial elapsed time led users to hold a negative opinion of SDE, despite its benefits. To overcome these obstacles, it is necessary to structure the clinical templates for optimum use. In addition, user experience in terms of ease of data entry must be considered as an essential aspect in the development of structured clinical templates.

American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System standardises reporting of thyroid ultrasounds

Background

Thyroid nodules are common, the majority benign. The small risk of malignancy leads to excessive workup. Thyroid ultrasound is essential for risk stratification and management guidance. Without an organised reporting guideline, reports do not add significant value to referring clinicians. The American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR TI-RADS) was developed to aid ultrasound reporting, lessen excessive biopsies and diagnose thyroid cancers.

Objectives

To standardise reporting of thyroid ultrasounds by utilising an organised reporting guideline based on ACR TI-RADS.

Method

Thyroid ultrasound reports generated by radiology registrars at an academic hospital were studied in two phases. In Phase 1, the reports were generated as free text, and in Phase 2, using a guideline based on ACR TI-RADS. The percentages of reports that described the maximum size, the five ACR TI-RADS features and a management recommendation were compared.

Results

A total of 130 reports were studied. Significant improvement was observed in the description of all five ACR TI-RADS categories (p < 0.0001) from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Of all the reports, 89% included a management recommendation. Reports including an ACR TI-RADS-based recommendation increased from 48% to 75% (p < 0.05). Recommendation for biopsy increased from 35.4% to 53.8% (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Introduction of an organised reporting guideline based on ACR TI-RADS, standardised reporting of thyroid ultrasounds by increasing description of thyroid nodule features and ensuring appropriate management recommendations. This, in future, will prevent underdiagnosis of thyroid cancer and unnecessary workup of benign nodules.

Feasibility of integrating computer-aided diagnosis with structured reports of prostate multiparametric MRI

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility of integrating computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) with structured reports of prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI).

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 153 patients who underwent prostate mpMRI for the purpose of targeted biopsy; patients were divided into a group with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4, n = 89) and a group with non-csPCa (n = 64). Ten inexperienced radiologists retrospectively evaluated these cases (single reader per case) twice using structured reports, and they were blinded to the pathologic results. Initially, the readers interpreted mpMRI without CAD. Six weeks later, they evaluated the same cases again with CAD assistance. At each time of image interpretation, lesions detected by the readers were marked on the prostate vector map in structured reports, and a PI-RADS score was given to each lesion. Diagnostic efficacy and reading time were evaluated for the two reading sessions.

RESULTS

With the assistance of CAD, the overall diagnostic efficacy was improved, i.e., the AUC increased from 0.83 to 0.89 (p = 0.018). Specifically, per-patient sensitivity (84.3% vs. 93.3%) and per-lesion sensitivity (76.7% vs. 88.8%) were significantly improved (all p < 0.05). Per-patient specificity with CAD (65.6%) was higher than that without CAD (56.3%), but statistical significance was not reached (p = 0.238). The reading time for each case decreased from 10.9 min to 7.8 min (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to integrate CAD with structured reports of prostate mpMRI. This reading paradigm can improve the diagnostic sensitivity of csPCa detection and reduce reading time among inexperienced radiologists.

PI-RADS version 2.1: one small step for prostate MRI

Multiparametric (mp) prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is playing an increasingly prominent role in the diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected prostate cancer. Performing mpMRI before biopsy offers several advantages including biopsy avoidance under certain clinical circumstances and targeting biopsy of suspicious lesions to enable the correct diagnosis. The success of the technique is heavily dependent on high-quality image acquisition, interpretation, and report communication, all areas addressed by previous versions of the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) recommendations. Numerous studies have validated the approach, but the widespread adoption of PI-RADS version 2 has also highlighted inconsistencies and limitations, particularly relating to interobserver variability for evaluation of the transition zone. These limitations are addressed in the recently released version 2.1. In this article, we highlight the key changes proposed in PI-RADS v2.1 and explore the background reasoning and evidence for the recommendations.

The value of structured radiology reports to categorize intracranial metastases following radiation therapy

PURPOSE

Radiology descriptions of intracranial metastases following radiotherapy are often imprecise. This study sought to improve such reports by creating and disseminating a structured template that encourages discrete categorization of intracranial lesions.

METHODS

Following initiation of the structured template, a retrospective review assessed patients with intracranial metastases that underwent radiotherapy, comparing 'pre-template' with 'post-template' reports. A total of 139 patients were included; 94 patients (67.6%) were imaged pre-template, 45 (32.4%) post-template. Reports were assessed for discrete versus non-specific descriptions of lesions: '(presumed) new metastases', 'treated metastases', and 'indeterminate lesions'. Non-specific language was subdivided based on the type of lesion(s) described: e.g. 'stable enhancing foci' was deemed a non-specific description of 'treated metastases'.

RESULTS

Non-specific descriptions of lesions were used in 25/94 reports (26.6%) pre-template, and eight reports (17.8%) post-template. No significant difference was found in the frequency of inappropriate/ambiguous descriptions of intracranial lesions following template initiation (P = 0.52). However, only 27/45 (60.0%) of the reports in the post-template time period used the structured report; the other reports were written as free prose. Of the reports that did use the structured template, the authors used significantly less ambiguous language structured template (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

When utilized, a structured report template resulted in decreased non-specific descriptions and improved discrete characterization of intracranial metastases in patients treated with radiation. However, the frequency of non-specific language usage before and after template initiation was unchanged, probably due to poor compliance with template utilization.

Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric MRI: A Comparison of 1 M-Concentration Gadobutrol with 0.5 M-Concentration Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents

INTRODUCTION

Gadobutrol (Gd-DO3A-butrol) (Gadovist®) is a macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) formulated at 1.0 mmol Gd/ml. Gadobutrol's higher concentration compared to other contrast agents (0.5 mmol Gd/ml) is associated with higher T1 relaxivity. We examined whether gadobutrol increases the accuracy of prostate cancer detection using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multiparametric MRI was performed in 379 patients: 94 patients received 1 M gadobutrol while 285 randomly received equivalent doses of 0.5 M gadoterate meglumine or gadopentetate dimeglumine. MRI images were retrospectively and blindly assessed for the presence of cancer by comparing them with prostate biopsy findings.

RESULTS

The specificity and accuracy were significantly higher with 1 M gadobutrol than 0.5 M of the other contrast agents. There were no significant differences in the sensitivity, or positive and negative predictive values.

CONCLUSION

Multiparametric MRI using 1 M gadobutrol may improve the accuracy of prostate cancer detection.