Radiologists, urologists both prefer PI-RADS v2 for prostate MRI reporting

Twitter icon
Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
e-mail icon
Google icon
 - check button

Members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and Society of Urologic Oncology prefer Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) for prostate MRI reporting, according to a new study published by the American Journal of Roentgenology.

The authors surveyed members of the two organizations electronically. Questions were developed as part of a Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-Focused Panel initiative. Overall, 84 percent of radiologists and 84 percent of urologists prefer PI-RADS v2. In addition, 84 percent of radiologists and 78 percent of urologists said PI-RADS v2 was used at their facility.

Another noteworthy statistic is that 51 percent of radiologists and 51 percent urologists thought radiologist inexperience with PI-RADS v2 was a barrier to more widespread implementation of the reporting system. Likewise, 46 percent of radiologists and 51 percent of urologists said urologist inexperience as a barrier to widespread implementation.

“The findings highlight that the creation of PI-RADSv2 is not by itself sufficient, but that the system's release must be accompanied by rigorous educational efforts for both radiologists and urologists to ensure that broad understanding and correct adoption is achieved,” wrote Benjamin Spilseth, MD, department of radiology at the University of Minnesota Medical School Twin Cities in Minneapolis, and colleagues.

Also, while 54 percent of urologists said they preferred fully structured reports, 53 percent of radiologists indicated a preference for hybrid structured and free-text reports. “To maximize the clinical value and adoption of prostate MRI, radiologists should be aware of urologists' preferences for a high level of structure and detail within prostate MRI reports and partner with their local urologists in ensuring that their reports provide all desired information,” the authors wrote.

Spilseth et al. noted their study did have some limitations. For instance, response rates were lower than the authors would have liked, though that may just be because respondents “lack experience in prostate MRI and would have thus been predisposed to not respond.” Another limitation is that the societies surveyed largely consist of academic physicians, which means the data may not accurately represent all practicing radiologists and urologists throughout the U.S.