Structured reporting in radiologic education – Potential of different PI-RADS versions in prostate MRI controlled by in-bore MR-guided biopsies

Objectives: To evaluate the efficiency of structured reporting in radiologic education – based on the example of different PI-RADS score versions for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate. Methods: MpMRI of 688 prostate lesions in 180 patients were retrospectively reviewed by an experienced radiologist and by a student using PI-RADS V1 and V2. Data sets were reviewed for changes according to PI-RADS V2.1. The results were correlated with results obtained by MR-guided biopsy. Diagnostic potency was evaluated by ROC analysis. Sensitivity, specificity and correct-graded samples were evaluated for different cutpoints. The agreement between radiologist and student was determined for the aggregation of the PI-RADS score in three categories. The student’s time needed for evaluation was measured. Results: The area under curve of the ROC analysis was 0.782/0.788 (V1/V2) for the student and 0.841/0.833 (V1/V2) for the radiologist. The agreement between student and radiologist showed a Cohen‘s weighted κ coefficient of 0.495 for V1 and 0.518 for V2. Median student’s time needed for score assessment was 4:34 min for PI-RADSv1 and 2:00 min for PI-RADSv2 (p < 0.001). Re-evaluation for V2.1 changed the category in 1.4% of all ratings. Conclusion: The capacity of prostate cancer detection using PI-RADS V1 and V2 is dependent on the reader‘s experience. The results from the two observers indicate that structured reporting using PI-RADS and, controlled by histopathology, can be a valuable and quantifiable tool in students‘ or residents’ education. Herein, V2 was superior to V1 in terms of inter-observer agreement and time efficacy. Advances in knowledge: Structured reporting can be a valuable and quantifiable tool in radiologic education. Structured reporting using PI-RADS can be used by a student with good performance. PI-RADS V2 is superior to V1 in terms of inter-observer agreement and time efficacy.

Reporting of pneumothorax in association with vaping devices and electronic cigarettes

Vaping may lead to spontaneous pneumothorax, but there are few published reports on this phenomenon. We present a case of vaping-related pneumothorax and make recommendations for structured reporting of this emerging cause for pneumothorax. A normal-weight 34-year-old male presented to our emergency department with dyspnoea and back pain increasing over 24 hours. Chest X-ray showed a large right-sided pneumothorax. Three years ago, he had quit smoking cigarettes and switched to vaping. CT scan revealed bullae, and the patient received apical lung resection. Histology revealed mild alveolitis. Vaping is an emerging cause of lung injury. This report demonstrates a potential association between vaping and pneumothorax. However, structured reporting and future research are needed to establish a definitive (or causal) relationship between vaping and pneumothorax.

Structured Reporting of Computed Tomography in the Staging of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Delphi Consensus Proposal

BackgroundStructured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms during the staging phase in order to improve communication between the radiologist and members of multidisciplinary teams.Materials and MethodsA panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, was established. A Modified Delphi process was used to develop the SR and to assess a level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation.ResultsThe final SR version was built by including n=16 items in the “Patient Clinical Data” section, n=13 items in the “Clinical Evaluation” section, n=8 items in the “Imaging Protocol” section, and n=17 items in the “Report” section. Overall, 54 items were included in the final version of the SR. Both in the first and second round, all sections received more than a good rating: a mean value of 4.7 and range of 4.2-5.0 in the first round and a mean value 4.9 and range of 4.9-5 in the second round. In the first round, the Cα correlation coefficient was a poor 0.57: the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.7 (range 1-5) and 728 (mean value 52.00 and standard deviation 2.83), respectively. In the second round, the Cα correlation coefficient was a good 0.82: the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.9 (range 4-5) and 760 (mean value 54.29 and standard deviation 1.64), respectively.ConclusionsThe present SR, based on a multi-round consensus-building Delphi exercise following in-depth discussion between expert radiologists in gastro-enteric and oncological imaging, derived from a multidisciplinary agreement between a radiologist, medical oncologist and surgeon in order to obtain the most appropriate communication tool for referring physicians.

Structured reporting of computed tomography in the staging of colon cancer: a Delphi consensus proposal

Background Structured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports in colon cancer during the staging phase in order to improve communication between the radiologist, members of multidisciplinary teams and patients. Materials and methods A panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, was established. A modified Delphi process was used to develop the SR and to assess a level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation. Results The final SR version was built by including n = 18 items in the “Patient Clinical Data” section, n = 7 items in the “Clinical Evaluation” section, n = 9 items in the “Imaging Protocol” section and n = 29 items in the “Report” section. Overall, 63 items were included in the final version of the SR. Both in the first and second round, all sections received a higher than good rating: a mean value of 4.6 and range 3.6–4.9 in the first round; a mean value of 5.0 and range 4.9–5 in the second round. In the first round, Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was a questionable 0.61. In the first round, the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.6 (range 1–5) and 1111 (mean value 74.07, STD 4.85), respectively. In the second round, Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was an acceptable 0.70. In the second round, the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of score for structured report were 4.9 (range 4–5) and 1108 (mean value 79.14, STD 1.83), respectively. The overall mean score obtained by the experts in the second round was higher than the overall mean score of the first round, with a lower standard deviation value to underline greater agreement among the experts for the structured report reached in this round. Conclusions A wide implementation of SR is of critical importance in order to offer referring physicians and patients optimum quality of service and to provide researchers with the best quality data in the context of big data exploitation of available clinical data. Implementation is a complex procedure, requiring mature technology to successfully address the multiple challenges of user-friendliness, organization and interoperability.

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.

Structured Reporting in Musculoskeletal Radiology

Musculoskeletal (MSK) radiologists are predominantly consultants in the service departments of health care. Unlike the manufacturing industry, quality controls are difficult to institute in a service industry and more variability is expected. Structured reporting is a unique way to institute quality standards, and by using the checklist approach with uniform terminology, it can lead to more homogeneity and consistency of reporting, concise lexicon use within and across practices, minimization of errors, enhancement of divisional and departmental branding, improvement of interdisciplinary communications, and future data mining. We share our experience from more than a decade of structured reporting in the domain of MSK radiology, our practice standards, and how reporting has evolved in our MSK practice. Further discussions include future directions aided by machine learning approaches with augmented reality and the possibility of virtual fellowship and training using consistent lexicons and structured reporting.

PI-RADS and Likert scales for structured reporting in multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) plays a critical role in the detection, staging and risk stratification of prostate cancer (PCa). There are two widely accepted structured reporting systems used for interpretation of mpMRI of the prostate - PI-RADS v2.1 and Likert. Both these systems demonstrate good diagnostic performance with high cancer detection rates however have key conceptual differences. In this commentary, the authors highlight the individual strengths and areas of potential improvement as well as emphasize the need for continued clinical validation for these interpreting and reporting systems.

Can New ENZIAN Score 2020 Represent A Staging System Improving MRI Structured Report?

Structured reporting systems for endometriotic disease are gaining a central role in diagnostic imaging: our aim is to evaluate applicability and the feasibility of the recent ENZIAN score (2020) assessed by MRI. A total of 60 patients with suspected tubo–ovarian/deep endometriosis were retrospectively included in our study according to the following criteria: availability of MR examination; histopathological results from laparoscopic or surgical treatment; patients were not assuming estro-progestin or progestin therapy. Three different readers (radiologists with 2-, 5-, and 20-years of experience in pelvic imaging) have separately assigned a score according to the ENZIAN score (revised 2020) for all lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Our study showed a high interobserver agreement and feasibility of the recent ENZIAN score applied to MRI; on the other hand, our experience highlighted some limitations mainly due to MRI’s inability to assess tubal patency and mobility, as required by the recent score (2020). In view of the limitations which arose from our study, we propose a modified MRI-ENZIAN score that provides a complete structured reporting system, more suitable for MRI. The high interobserver agreement of the recent ENZIAN score applied to MRI confirms its validity as a complete staging system for endometriosis, offering a shared language between radiologists and surgeons.