Patient Perceptions of Standardized Risk Language Used in ACR Prostate MRI PI-RADS Scores

Abstract

IntroductionProstate MRI reports use standardized language to describe risk of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) from “equivocal” (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] 3), “likely” (PI-RADS 4), to “highly likely” (PI-RADS 5). These terms correspond to risks of 11%, 37%, and 70% according to American Urological Association guidelines, respectively. We assessed how men perceive risk associated with standardized PI-RADS language. MethodologyWe conducted a crowdsourced survey of 1,204 men matching a US prostate cancer demographic. We queried participants’ risk perception associated with standardized PI-RADS language across increasing contexts: words only, PI-RADS sentence, full report, and full report with numeric estimate. Median perceived risk (interquartile range) and absolute under/overestimation compared with American Urological Association standards were reported. Multivariable linear mixed-effects analysis identified factors associated with accuracy of risk perception. ResultsMedian perceived risks of csPCa (interquartile range) for the word-only context were “equivocal” 50% (50%-74%), “likely” 75% (68%-85%), and “highly likely” 87% (78%-92%), corresponding to +39%, +38%, +17% overestimation, respectively. Median perceived risks for the PI-RADS-sentence context were 50% (50%-50%), 75% (68%-81%), and 90% (80%-94%) for PI-RADS 3, 4,and 5, corresponding to +39%, +38%, +20% overestimation, respectively. Median perceived risks for the full-report context were 50% (35%-70%), 72% (50%-80%), and 84% (54%-91%) for PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5, corresponding to +39%, +35%, +14% overestimation, respectively. For the full-report-with-numeric-estimate context describing a PI-RADS 4 lesion, median perceived risk was 70% (50%-%80), corresponding to +33% overestimation. Including numeric estimates increased correct perception of risk from 3% to 11% (P < .001), driven by men with higher numeracy (odds ratio 1.24, P = .04). ConclusionMen overestimate risk of csPCa associated with standardized PI-RADS language regardless of context, especially for PI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions. Changes to PI-RADS language or data-sharing policies for imaging reports should be considered.