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

Abstract

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