Impact of a standardized reporting format on the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging

Real-World Validation of Coregistration and Structured Reporting for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Monitoring in Multiple Sclerosis

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this research were to assess the effectiveness of computer-assisted detection reading (CADR) and structured reports in monitoring patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and to evaluate the role of radiology technicians in this context.

METHODS

Eighty-seven patients with MS who underwent at least 2 sequential magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-ups analyzed by 2 radiologists and a technician. Progression of disease (POD) was identified through the emergence of T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery white matter hyperintensities or contrast enhancements and evaluated both qualitatively (progression vs stability) and quantitatively (count of new white matter hyperintensities).

RESULTS

CADR increased the accuracy by 11%, enhancing interobserver consensus on qualitative progression and saving approximately 2 minutes per examination. Although structured reports did not improve these metrics, it may improve clinical communication and permit technicians to achieve approximately 80% accuracy in MRI readings.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CADR improves the accuracy, agreement, and interpretation time in MRI follow-ups of MS. With the help of computer tools, radiology technicians could represent a significant aid in the follow-up of these patients.

Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using the Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) Scoring System to Detect Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) was introduced in 2021 to standardize the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer following whole-gland treatment. The system scores image on a scale from 1 to 5 and has shown promising results in single-center studies. The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the diagnostic performance of the PI-RR system in predicting the likelihood of local recurrence after whole-gland treatment.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for diagnostic test accuracy were followed. Relevant databases were searched up to December 2023. Primary studies met the eligibility criteria if they reported MRI diagnostic performance in prostate cancer recurrence using PI-RR. Diagnostic performance for MRI was assessed using two different cutoff points (≥3 or ≥4 for positivity according to the PI-RR system). A meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity values.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Sixteen articles were identified for full-text reading, of which six were considered eligible, involving a total of 467 patients. Using a cutoff of PI-RR ≥3 (4 studies) for recurrent disease, the sensitivity was 77.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.9-84.1%) and the specificity was 80.2% (95% CI 58.2-92.2%). Using a cutoff of PI-RR ≥4 (4 studies), the sensitivity was 61.9% (95% CI 35.6-82.7%) and the specificity was 86.6% (95% CI 75.1-93.3%). Overall, the inter-rater agreement varied from fair to excellent.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

PI-RR is accurate in detecting local recurrence after whole-gland treatment for prostate cancer and shows fair-to-good to excellent inter-reader agreement. Overall, a PI-RR cutoff of ≥3 showed high sensitivity and specificity.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed studies that reported on how good MRI scans using a scoring system called PI-RR were in detecting recurrence of prostate cancer. We found that this system shows good performance, with fair to excellent agreement between different radiologists.

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.

Multi-practice survey on MR imaging practice patterns in rectal cancer in the United States

PURPOSE

To investigate practice patterns related to MR technique and structured reporting for MRI of rectal cancer at academic centers and private practice groups in the United States.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A survey developed by active members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Rectal and Anal Cancer Disease Focus Panel was sent to 100 private practice and 189 academic radiology groups. The survey asked targeted questions about practice demographics and utilization, technical MR parameters and reporting practices related to MRI of rectal cancer. The results were analyzed using software in an online survey program.

RESULTS

The survey received 47 unique responses from academic (37/47, 78.7%) and private practice (10/47, 21.3%) groups. Most practices report using rectal MR for staging newly diagnosed rectal cancer always (29/47, 61.7%), and less than half always do so for re-staging after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (20/47, 42.6%). Most groups perform between 1 to 5 rectal MR studies for baseline staging per week (32/47, 68.1%) and most groups perform 0 to 2 MR studies for re-staging per week (27/47, 57.4%). Regarding patient preparation and MR technical parameters, there is variability, but a few key points include most practices (27/47, 57.4%) acquire axial T2-weighted images at a slice thickness of 3 mm or less, axial T2-weighted images with 2D acquisition (30/47, 63.8%), a T2-weighted axial oblique sequence through the tumor (43/47, 91.5%), and T2-weighted images without fat suppression (37/47, 78.7%). Equal numbers of groups report using a maximal b-value less than 1000 s/mm² (19/43, 44.2%) and 1000 s/mm² or greater (19/43, 44.2%); the rest were unsure. A substantial portion of respondents do not use intravenous contrast (13/47, 27.7%). Most believe that structured report templates contribute to uniformity of reporting practices (39/47, 83.0%), though there is considerable heterogeneity in usage and included elements.

CONCLUSION

There is considerable technical heterogeneity among respondents' answers and reporting practices in MR for rectal cancer, and most of the groups report reading only a modest number of studies per week. Our findings suggest there may be room for improvement in terms of radiologist education for performance and standardization of clinical practice for MR imaging of rectal cancer.

Measurement of rectal tumor height from the anal verge on MRI: a comparison of internal versus external anal sphincter

PURPOSE

To determine the most accurate measurement technique to assess rectal tumor height on MRI using two different anatomic landmarks for the anal verge.

INTRODUCTION

Accurate measurements and standardized reporting of MRI for rectal cancer staging is essential. It is not known whether measurements starting from the internal anal sphincter (IAS) or external anal sphincter (EAS) more closely correlate with tumor height from the anal verge on endoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective study included baseline staging MRI examinations for 85 patients after exclusions. Two radiologists blinded to endoscopic results measured the distance of rectal tumors from the internal anal sphincter and external anal sphincter on sagittal T2 images. The reference standard was endoscopic measurement of tumor height; descriptive statistics were performed.

RESULTS

For reader 1, the mean difference in measurement of tumor height between MRI and endoscopy was - 0.45 cm (SD ± 1.76 cm, range - 6.0 to 3.9 cm) for the IAS and 0.51 cm (SD ± 1.75 cm range - 4.7 to 4.8 cm) for the EAS. For reader 2, the mean difference in measurement of tumor height between MRI and endoscopy was - 0.57 (STD ± 1.81, range - 5.9 to 4.8 cm) for the IAS and 0.52 cm (STD ± 1.85, range - 4.3 to 5.6 cm) for the EAS. Interobserver ICC was excellent between reader 1 and reader 2 for measurements from both the IAS (0.955 95% CI 0.931-0.97) and EAS (0.952, 95% CI 0.928, 0.969).

CONCLUSION

Measurement of tumor height on MRI was highly reproducible between readers; beginning measurements from the EAS tends to slightly overestimate tumor height on average and from the IAS tends to slightly underestimate tumor height on average.