Practice Patterns and Challenges of Performing and Interpreting Prostate MRI: A Survey by the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Disease-Focused Panel.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to report on the practice patterns and challenges of performing and interpreting prostate MRI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. An electronic survey regarding prostate MRI practice patterns and challenges was sent to members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology. RESULTS. The response rate was 15% (212/1446). Most (65%) of the respondents were academic abdominal radiologists with 1-5 (52%), 6-10 (20%), 11-20 (15%), and more than 20 (5%) years of experience in reporting prostate MRI. The numbers of prostate MRI examinations reported per week were 0-5 (43%), 6-10 (38%), 11-20 (12%), 21-30 (5%), and more than 30 (2%). Imaging was performed at 3 T (58%), 1.5 T (20%), or either (21%), and most examinations (83%) were performed without an endorectal coil. Highest b values ranged from 800 to 5000 s/mm2; 1400 s/mm2 (26%) and 1500 s/mm2 (30%) were the most common. Most respondents (79%) acquired dynamic contrast-enhanced images with temporal resolution of less than 10 seconds. Most (71%) of the prostate MRI studies were used for fusion biopsy. PI-RADS version 2 was used by 92% of the respondents and template reporting by 80%. Challenges to performing and interpreting prostate MRI were scored on a 1-5 Likert scale (1, easy; 2, somewhat easy; 3, neutral; 4, somewhat difficult; 5, very difficult). The median scores were 2 or 3 for patient preparatory factors. Image acquisition and reporting factors were scored 1-2, except for performing spectroscopy or using an endorectal coil, both of which scored 4. Acquiring patient history scored 2 and quality factors scored 3. CONCLUSION. Most radiologists perform prostate MRI at 3 T without an endorectal coil and interpret the images using PI-RADS version 2. Challenges include obtaining quality images, acquiring feedback, and variability in the interpretation of PI-RADS scores.

Rethinking the PGY-1 Basic Clinical Year: A Canadian National Survey of Its Educational Value for Diagnostic Radiology Residents.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Recently, the relevance of the postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1) Basic Clinical Year for radiology residents has been questioned. The purpose of this study was to determine the attitude of radiologists and trainees toward this year and which clinical rotations they perceived as most valuable to clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following institutional review board approval, an anonymous online survey was administered to Canadian radiologists and radiology trainees. In addition to reporting demographic information, respondents were asked to rank the usefulness of individual rotations on a five-point Likert scale. To assess whether there are differences in the ratings and therefore rankings of the rotations by gender, position, and level of training, the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance test was used with significance defined as P < .05. The Schulze method was used to rank the perceived usefulness of clinical rotations considered. RESULTS: Of the 275 respondents, 73.1% were male and 47.3% were trainees. A total of 71.3% of respondents were in favor of the basic clinical year, whereas 16.4% opposed. There was a statistically significant difference between the responses of staff radiologists and trainees, with the staff more strongly favoring the Basic Clinical Year (84.1%) than the trainees (56.9%) (P < .0001). As a whole, the respondents favored general surgery rotations as most relevant to their clinical practice (agreement rate of 48.3%). Interventional radiologists found general and subspecialty surgical rotations to be equally relevant. The rotations deemed to be "essential" were emergency medicine (48.7%) and general surgery (46.6%), and the rotations deemed to be "very useful" were orthopedics (45.8%), trauma (44.4%), neurosurgery (43.3%), neurology (42.2%), and hepatobiliary surgery (38.9%). There was no statistical difference between the respondents' choices based on their level of experience and scope of practice. CONCLUSIONS: Most radiologists and radiology trainees were in favor of completing the PGY-1 Basic Clinical Year. However, programs should maximize the education value of this year by including more of the top-ranked rotations. As the practice of radiology evolves, it is important to ensure that training paradigms continue to prepare residents for independent practice.