In May of 2020, the United States Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology Final Rule implemented sections of the 2016 21st Century Cures Act, which ensures that patients in the USA have direct access to their health records, including physicians’ notes, lab values, and diagnostic reports [1]. Though the electronic medical record (EMR) has traditionally been a provider-focused data repository intended for treatment, billing, and legal documentation, the ONC Cures Act has expanded its purpose to include patient engagement and education. While the Cures Act is laudable in its pursuit of transparency, direct access to the electronic medical record (EMR) also confers the potential for patient misunderstanding given a lack of clinical knowledge and context. As such, the use of precise, patient-focused language in medical records has become more important to ensure clarity and avoid unnecessary confusion among patients, especially for high-risk, emotionally evocative conditions such as cancer.
Standardized language endorsed by the American College of Radiology (ACR) to describe prostate MRI results provides an example of how imprecise language in the EMR can lead to confusion, anxiety, and even a false presumption of cancer diagnosis by patients. The goal of diagnostic prostate MRI is to identify areas of concern for clinically significant cancer that can be targeted on biopsy to confirm or deny presence of malignancy. Prostate cancer is generally considered clinically significant when involving Gleason 3 + 4 disease (grade group 2) or higher [2, 3]. Interpretation of prostate MRI has been standardized by the ACR under the Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 (PIRADS-V2.1), with scoring ranging from 1-5 based on information from diffusion-weighted imaging, apparent-diffusion coefficient, T2, and contrast enhanced perfusion multiparametric MRI sequences, with a higher score indicating a higher probability of prostate cancer. The ACR also endorses standardized descriptions of the likelihood of each score in identifying clinically significant cancer as noted in Table 1, ranging from “highly unlikely” (PIRADS 1), “unlikely” (PIRADS 2), “equivocal” (PIRADS 3), “likely” (PIRADS 4), to “highly likely” (PIRADS 5). By definition, the term “likely” implies a probability >50%, and the term “equivocal” implies uncertainty or ambiguity (i.e. 50/50 probability). However, the diagnostic characteristics for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by PIRADS scores of 3 and 4 are out of step with these definitions. Guidelines from the American Urologic Association cite the rate of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer for PIRADS 3 and 4 lesions as 11% and 37%, respectively [4]. Therefore, by ACR standard descriptions, an 11% probability for PIRADS 3 lesions corresponds to an “equivocal” likelihood, and a 37% probability for PIRADS 4 lesions corresponds to a “likely” diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. This loose language can result in inappropriate assumptions about a cancer diagnosis by patients reading the EMR, as illustrated by the following quotes from patients in our practice who had PIRADS 4 lesions and ultimately went on to have negative biopsies:
“I just received the MRI on the link. I see it’s saying I might have cancer…Please contact me as soon as possible.”
“I hope by now you have had an opportunity to review my recent MRI. Obviously, I am somewhat concerned by the results…”
Inappropriate attribution of a cancer diagnosis to a patient is unacceptable, since even a brief misunderstanding may cause significant anxiety for the patient and their family. While physicians could preemptively discuss the use of MRI in risk assessment prior to imaging, the language in the report would still be misleading. Receiving a radiology report which describes an MRI finding as “equivocal” or “likely” to represent clinically significant cancer for PIRADS 3 and 4 lesions that have 11 and 37% likelihood of truly being clinically significant, respectively, is without question misleading. After implementation of the Cures Act, when patients will often receive this information outside of a conversation with their physician, standard language of the PI-RADS scoring system (Table 1) should be revised and/or be accompanied by actual estimates (ideally institution- or radiologist-specific estimates, given high variability between reading radiologists) to better reflect true risks of disease. This is consistent with how other cancer screening tests for prostate cancer (e.g. PSA and free PSA) are reported and how other standardized imaging reports such as the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System are presented [5]. It is time for the ACR to update PI-RADS language to be more consistent with actual risk.
References
Federal Register: 21st Century Cures Act: interoperability, information blocking, and the ONC Health IT Certification Program. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/01/2020-07419/21st-century-cures-act-interoperability-information-blocking-and-the-onc-health-it-certification. Accessed 22 Aug 2022.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging – reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40.
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76:340–351.
Wei JT, Barocas D, Carlsson S, Coakley F, Eggener S, Etzioni R, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA/SUO guideline part I: prostate cancer screening. J Urol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003491.
D’Orsi C, Sickles E, Mendelson E, Morris EA. BI-RADS® Atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.
Funding
This work was supported by Career Development Award (K08 CA230155 to TJD) from the National Cancer Institute. Open access funding provided by SCELC, Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JRD: Project conceptualization, data collection, manuscript writing, manuscript editing; BS: Manuscript writing, manuscript review and editing; SJF: Data collection, manuscript writing, manuscript review and editing; RS: Manuscript writing, manuscript review and editing; PK: Data collection, manuscript writing, manuscript review and editing; TJD: Project conceptualization, Data collection, manuscript writing, manuscript review and editing, project supervision.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Dallmer, J.R., Spiegel, B., Freedland, S.J. et al. Potential miscommunication of risk in American College of Radiology Prostate Imaging and Data System (PIRADS) scores. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00781-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00781-0