Making an art into a science: a mathematical "Likert tool" can change PI-RADS (v2) scores into Likert scores when reporting multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: When reporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for prostate cancer, UK national guidelines recommend allocating both Likert and PI-RAD scores. Likert scores have been shown to better predict clinically significant cancer (csPCa) but are subjective and lack standardization. PURPOSE: To compare differences in outcomes between the scoring systems and create a mathematical tool that can help to objectively allocate Likert scores. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 791 patients referred with query prostate cancer between 2017 and 2019 were prospectively allocated PI-RADS and Likert scores by a single experienced reporter. Histology results were used to compare the predictive accuracy of both scoring systems. A "Likert tool" was created based on a logistic regression of features found to be predictors of csPCa in a cohort of 2018-2019 patients (n = 411). Its performance was evaluated. RESULTS: Assuming a policy whereby patients with a PI-RADS/Likert score of ≥3 are biopsied, Likert scoring (sensitivity 0.92, specificity 0.77) would have resulted in 107 fewer biopsies and 20.3% higher cancer yields than the PI-RADS score (sensitivity 0.99, specificity 0.43). Thirteen patients would have avoided over-diagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (iPCa). Similar outcomes (111 fewer biopsies, 22.3% increase in cancer yield, iPCa diagnosis avoided in 16 patients) could be seen when the "Likert tool" was applied to the same patient cohort (sensitivity 0.93, specificity 0.79) and to a separate cohort (n = 380). CONCLUSION: PI-RADS and Likert scores are different. A "Likert tool" could reduce inter-reporter variability, decrease the number of patients unnecessarily biopsied, increase csPCa yield, and decrease over-diagnosis of iPCa.

It's not about the errors, it's about the learning: How the Royal College of Radiologists has developed a Radiology Events and Learning process in the United Kingdom.

The Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) is based in the United Kingdom but is a global organisation with members and fellows worldwide. In this invited article, the chair of the RCR Radiology Events and Learning (REAL) panel recounts his experience in looking at radiological errors. He starts with his personal work auditing his own mistakes as a junior consultant, describes what he learned in his departmental role in a large teaching hospital running a Radiology Events and Learning Meeting (REALM) and gives an overview of some of the work done over the last two decades by the RCR. This includes publishing national guidelines which set standards for running a REALM, setting up the REAL panel which produces a quarterly newsletter of cases from RCR members, and running an annual conference to share information with local radiology departments around the country. A review of the literature describing the drivers for this work and looking at the parallels with industry lies alongside the practical tips he found useful which he hopes would be helpful to anyone setting up their own departmental errors or discrepancy meeting.