Novices in MRI-targeted prostate biopsy benefit from structured reporting of MRI findings



The aim of this study was to investigate whether structured reports (SRs) of prostate MRI results are more suitable than non-structured reports (NSRs) for promoting the more accurate assessment of the location of a single prostate cancer lesion by novices in MRI-targeted biopsy.


50 NSRs and 50 SRs describing a single prostatic lesion were presented to 5 novices in MRI-targeted biopsy. The participants were asked to plot the tumor location in a two-dimensional prostate diagram and to answer a questionnaire on the quality of the reports. The accuracy of the plotted tumor position was evaluated with a validated 30-point scoring system that distinguished between “major” and “minor” mistakes.


The overall mean score for the accuracy of the tumor plotting was significantly higher for SRs than for NSRs (26.4 vs. 20.7, p < 0.01). The mean numbers of major (1.4 vs. 0.48, p < 0.01) and minor (3.05 vs. 1.15, p < 0.01) mistakes were significantly higher for NSRs than for SRs. Compared with NSRs, SRs received significantly higher ratings for the perceived quality of the summary (4.0 vs. 2.4, p < 0.01) as well as for the overall satisfaction with the report (4.1 vs. 2.1, p < 0.01).


Novices in MRI-targeted biopsy prefer structured reporting of prostate MRI as an information tool. SRs allow for a more accurate assessment of the location of single prostate cancer lesions. Therefore, structured reporting of prostate MRI may help to foster the learning process of novices in MRI-targeted biopsy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3


  1. 1.

    Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, Collaco-Moraes Y, Ward K, Hindley RG, Freeman A, Kirkham AP, Oldroyd R, Parker C, Emberton M, Group Ps (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Ganeshan D, Duong PT, Probyn L, Lenchik L, McArthur TA, Retrouvey M, Ghobadi EH, Desouches SL, Pastel D, Francis IR (2018) Structured reporting in radiology. Acad Radiol 25(1):66–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H (2011) Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 260(1):174–181.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    James JT (2013) A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf 9(3):122–128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Futterer JJ, European Society of Urogenital R (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Magnetta MJ, Donovan AL, Jacobs BL, Davies BJ, Furlan A (2018) Evidence-based reporting: a method to optimize prostate MRI communications with referring physicians. Am J Roentgenol 210(1):108–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Gassenmaier S, Armbruster M, Haasters F, Helfen T, Henzler T, Alibek S, Pforringer D, Sommer WH, Sommer NN (2017) Structured reporting of MRI of the shoulder—improvement of report quality? Eur Radiol 27(10):4110–4119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Franconeri A, Fang J, Carney B, Justaniah A, Miller L, Hur HC, King LP, Alammari R, Faintuch S, Mortele KJ, Brook OR (2017) Structured vs narrative reporting of pelvic MRI for fibroids: clarity and impact on treatment planning. Eur Radiol.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Westhoff N, Siegel F, Peter C, Hetjens S, Porubsky S, Martini T, von Hardenberg J, Michel MS, Budjan J, Ritter M (2019) Defining the target prior to prostate fusion biopsy: the effect of MRI reporting on cancer detection. World J Urol 37(2):327–335.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, Emberton M, Futterer JJ, Gill IS, Grubb Iii RL, Hadaschik B, Klotz L, Margolis DJ, Marks LS, Melamed J, Oto A, Palmer SL, Pinto P, Puech P, Punwani S, Rosenkrantz AB, Schoots IG, Simon R, Taneja SS, Turkbey B, Ukimura O, van der Meulen J, Villers A, Watanabe Y, Consortium S (2013) Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol 64(4):544–552.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Ebbing J, Jaderling F, Collins JW, Akre O, Carlsson S, Hoijer J, Olsson MJ, Wiklund PN (2018) Comparison of 3D printed prostate models with standard radiological information to aid understanding of the precise location of prostate cancer: a construct validation study. PLoS One 13(6):e0199477.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Wetterauer C, Winkel DJ, Federer-Gsponer JR, Halla A, Subotic S, Deckart A, Seifert HH, Boll DT, Ebbing J (2019) Structured reporting of prostate magnetic resonance imaging has the potential to improve interdisciplinary communication. PLoS One 14(2):e0212444.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Norenberg D, Sommer WH, Thasler W, D’Haese J, Rentsch M, Kolben T, Schreyer A, Rist C, Reiser M, Armbruster M (2017) Structured reporting of rectal magnetic resonance imaging in suspected primary rectal cancer: potential benefits for surgical planning and interdisciplinary communication. Invest Radiol 52(4):232–239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Locketz GD, Lui JT, Chan S, Salisbury K, Dort JC, Youngblood P, Blevins NH (2017) Anatomy-specific virtual reality simulation in temporal bone dissection: perceived utility and impact on surgeon confidence. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 156(6):1142–1149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hawkins CM, Hall S, Zhang B, Towbin AJ (2014) Creation and implementation of department-wide structured reports: an analysis of the impact on error rate in radiology reports. J Digit Imaging 27(5):581–587.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank Selina Ackermann from the University Hospital Basel for the editorial assistance.

Author information




CW: data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing, protocol/project development. DJW: data collection or management, data analysis, protocol/project development, manuscript writing/editing. JRFG: data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. FL: data collection or management. TH: data collection or management. PS: data collection or management. SGD: data collection or management. LZ: data collection or management. CE: data collection or management. AH: data collection or management. HHS: manuscript writing/editing, protocol/project development. DTB: manuscript writing/editing, protocol/project development. JE: data analysis; manuscript writing/editing, protocol/project development

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Jean Winkel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

This work was supported by the Department of Surgery of the University Hospital Basel.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wetterauer, C., Winkel, D.J., Federer-Gsponer, J.R. et al. Novices in MRI-targeted prostate biopsy benefit from structured reporting of MRI findings. World J Urol 38, 1729–1734 (2020).

Download citation


  • Prostate cancer
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Novices
  • Structured report
  • MRI-targeted biopsy