Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 29, 2026

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 7 Tesla
Published on: January 6, 2019
Structured reporting of prostate magnetic resonance imaging has the potential to improve interdisciplinary
C Wetterauer1, D J Winkel2, J R Federer-Gsponer1
1University Hospital Basel, Urological University Clinic Basel-Liestal, Basel, Switzerland.
Background:
Effective interdisciplinary communication of imaging findings is vital for patient care, as referring physicians depend on the contained information for the decision-making and subsequent treatment. Traditional radiology reports contain non-structured free text and potentially tangled information in narrative language, which can hamper the information transfer and diminish the clarity of the report. Therefore, this study investigates whether newly developed structured reports (SRs) of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can improve interdisciplinary communication, as compared to non-structured reports (NSRs).
Methods:
50 NSRs and 50 SRs describing a single prostatic lesion were presented to four urologists with expert level experience in prostate cancer surgery or targeted MRI TRUS fusion biopsy. They were subsequently asked to plot the tumor location in a 2-dimensional prostate diagram and to answer a questionnaire focusing on information on clinically relevant key features as well as the perceived structure of the report. A validated scoring system that distinguishes between "major" and "minor" mistakes was used to evaluate the accuracy of the plotting of the tumor position in the prostate diagram.
Results:
The mean total score for accuracy for SRs was significantly higher than for NSRs (28.46 [range 13.33-30.0] vs. 21.75 [range 0.0-30.0], p < 0.01). The overall rates of major mistakes (54% vs. 10%) and minor mistakes (74% vs. 22%) were significantly higher (p < 0.01) for NSRs than for SRs. The rate of radiologist re-consultations was significantly lower (p < 0.01) for SRs than for NSRs (19% vs. 85%). Furthermore, SRs were rated as significantly superior to NSRs in regard to determining the clinical tumor stage (p < 0.01), the quality of the summary (4.4 vs. 2.5; p < 0.01), and overall satisfaction with the report (4.5 vs. 2.3; p < 0.01), and as more valuable for further clinical decision-making and surgical planning (p < 0.01).
Conclusions:
Structured reporting of prostate MRI has the potential to improve interdisciplinary communication. Through SRs, expert urologists were able to more accurately assess the exact location of single prostate cancer lesions, which can facilitate surgical planning. Furthermore, structured reporting of prostate MRI leads to a higher satisfaction level of the referring physician.
More Related Videos
06:08A Cognitive Fusion-guided Prostate Biopsy Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound
Published on: March 21, 2025
05:49Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Biopsy Data to Guide Sampling Procedures for Prostate Cancer Biobanking
Published on: October 10, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Imaging Studies IV: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Data Reporting and Recording
Resonance and Hybrid Structures
Resonance Structures and Resonance Hybrids
The Lewis structure of a nitrite anion (NO2−) may actually be drawn in two different ways, distinguished by the locations of the N–O and N=O bonds.
Magnetic Vector Potential
Consider an ideal solenoid with n turns per unit length and radius R. If I is the current through the solenoid, the magnetic field inside the solenoid is expressed as the product of vacuum...
Resonance