Patient Perceptions of Standardized Risk Language Used in American College of Radiology Prostate MRI PIRADS Scores (2024)
"
Introduction
Prostate MRI reports utilize standardized language to describe risk of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) from “equivocal”(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 AUA 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 (IQR) and absolute under/overestimation compared with AUA standards were reported. Multivariable linear mixed effects analysis identified factors associated with accuracy of risk perception.
ResultsMedian perceived risks of csPCa (IQR) 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<0.001), driven by men with higher numeracy (OR1.24,p=0.04).
Conclusion
Men 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."----------------------------------------
Interesting, but IMO not
that reassuring--if you have a PI-RADS 3 or higher lesion you're headed for a biopsy, and AFAIK, you can't just dial down your level of worry. I think they should add the risk percentages in parentheses--I don't think you can convey the nuances of risk with language alone.