Multi-institutional analysis of ct and mri reports evaluating indeterminate renal masses: Comparison to a national survey investigating desired report elements

Purpose: To determine the need for a standardized renal mass reporting template by analyzing reports of indeterminate renal masses and comparing their contents to stated preferences of radiologists and urologists. Methods: The host IRB waived regulatory oversight for this multi-institutional HIPAA-compliant quality improvement effort. CT and MRI reports created to characterize an indeterminate renal mass were analyzed from 6 community (median: 17 reports/site) and 6 academic (median: 23 reports/site) United States practices. Report contents were compared to a published national survey of stated preferences by academic radiologists and urologists from 9 institutions. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were calculated. Results: Of 319 reports, 85% (271; 192 CT, 79 MRI) reported a possibly malignant mass (236 solid, 35 cystic). Some essential elements were commonly described: size (99% [269/271]), mass type (solid vs. cystic; 99% [268/ 271]), enhancement (presence vs. absence; 92% [248/ 271]). Other essential elements had incomplete penetrance: the presence or absence of fat in solid masses (14% [34/236]), size comparisons when available (79% [111/140]), Bosniak classification for cystic masses (54% [19/35]). Preferred but non-essential elements generally were described in less than half of reports. Nephrometry scores usually were not included for local therapy candidates (12% [30/257]). Academic practices were significantly more likely than community practices to include mass characterization details, probability of malignancy, and staging. Community practices were significantly more likely to include management recommendations. Conclusions: Renal mass reporting elements considered essential or preferred often areomitted in radiology reports.Abstract Purpose: To determine the need for a standardized renal mass reporting template by analyzing reports of indeterminate renal masses and comparing their contents to stated preferences of radiologists and urologists. Methods: The host IRB waived regulatory oversight for this multi-institutional HIPAA-compliant quality improvement effort. CT and MRI reports created to characterize an indeterminate renal mass were analyzed from 6 community (median: 17 reports/site) and 6 academic (median: 23 reports/site) United States practices. Report contents were compared to a published national survey of stated preferences by academic radiologists and urologists from 9 institutions. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were calculated. Results: Of 319 reports, 85% (271; 192 CT, 79 MRI) reported a possibly malignant mass (236 solid, 35 cystic). Some essential elements were commonly described: size (99% [269/271]), mass type (solid vs. cystic; 99% [268/ 271]), enhancement (presence vs. absence; 92% [248/ 271]). Other essential elements had incomplete penetrance: the presence or absence of fat in solid masses (14% [34/236]), size comparisons when available (79% [111/140]), Bosniak classification for cystic masses (54% [19/35]). Preferred but non-essential elements generally were described in less than half of reports. Nephrometry scores usually were not included for local therapy candidates (12% [30/257]). Academic practices were significantly more likely than community practices to include mass characterization details, probability of malignancy, and staging. Community practices were significantly more likely to include management recommendations. Conclusions: Renal mass reporting elements considered essential or preferred often areomitted in radiology reports.Abstract Purpose: To determine the need for a standardized renal mass reporting template by analyzing reports of indeterminate renal masses and comparing their contents to stated preferences of radiologists and urologists. Methods: The host IRB waived regulatory oversight for this multi-institutional HIPAA-compliant quality improvement effort. CT and MRI reports created to characterize an indeterminate renal mass were analyzed from 6 community (median: 17 reports/site) and 6 academic (median: 23 reports/site) United States practices. Report contents were compared to a published national survey of stated preferences by academic radiologists and urologists from 9 institutions. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were calculated. Results: Of 319 reports, 85% (271; 192 CT, 79 MRI) reported a possibly malignant mass (236 solid, 35 cystic). Some essential elements were commonly described: size (99% [269/271]), mass type (solid vs. cystic; 99% [268/ 271]), enhancement (presence vs. absence; 92% [248/ 271]). Other essential elements had incomplete penetrance: the presence or absence of fat in solid masses (14% [34/236]), size comparisons when available (79% [111/140]), Bosniak classification for cystic masses (54% [19/35]). Preferred but non-essential elements generally were described in less than half of reports. Nephrometry scores usually were not included for local therapy candidates (12% [30/257]). Academic practices were significantly more likely than community practices to include mass characterization details, probability of malignancy, and staging. Community practices were significantly more likely to include management recommendations. Conclusions: Renal mass reporting elements considered essential or preferred often areomitted in radiology reports.