Loading
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment · Journal article
European Radiology Experimental · August 10, 2026
Early or partial results. Treat as a signal, not a conclusion.
This retrospective study compared conventional free-text reporting (FTR) with template-based structured reporting (SR) for PSMA PET/CT using reader assessment of report quality and clinical utility. Contrary to the hypothesis that SR would improve reporting, FTR was rated superior across most domains, suggesting that SR performance depends critically on template design and local expertise rather than format alone.
Retrospective comparative study. 50 consecutive patients undergoing PSMA PET/CT for prostate cancer diagnosis and staging.. Intervention: Template-based structured reporting (SR) using clickable decision trees on online software.. Compared with: Conventional free-text reporting (FTR) from original clinical records.. n = 50.
FTR achieved higher overall report quality scores than SR (mean 5.46 versus 4.71; p < 0.0001) Missing key features were more common in SR than FTR (54% versus 36%; p = 0.005) Information rated sufficient to guide surgery versus conservative therapy decisions: 91% FTR versus 76% SR (p = 0.018)
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
These findings suggest that structured reporting templates for PSMA PET/CT may not automatically improve clinical reporting quality or decision-making utility compared to expert free-text reporting. Clinicians implementing SR should recognise that template design, user expertise, and clinical context are critical variables; routine adoption without prospective validation and local workflow optimisation may not deliver expected benefits.
Single-centre, retrospective comparison of reporting formats on surrogate endpoints (report quality metrics) without prospective validation or clinical outcome data; small sample with inherent bias from retrospective design limits generalizability.
As stated by the source record.
Quoted from the source exactly as published.
These findings suggest that structured reporting templates for PSMA PET/CT may not automatically improve clinical reporting quality or decision-making utility compared to expert free-text reporting. Clinicians implementing SR should recognise that template design, user expertise, and clinical context are critical variables; routine adoption without prospective validation and local workflow optimisation may not deliver expected benefits.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the impact of structured reporting (SR) compared with conventional free-text reporting (FTR) on report quality for PSMA PET/CT for diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer (PC) using a dedicated template. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients were included. Original clinical FTRs were compared with SRs retrospectively generated for the same examinations using template-based online software featuring clickable decision trees. Two readers specialised in urology and radioligand therapy independently assessed reports with regard to completeness, ease of information extraction, linguistic and overall report quality. RESULTS: FTR achieved higher scores for overall report quality compared with SR (mean 5.46 versus 4.71; p < 0.0001) and was associated with fewer missing key features (present in 36% of FTR versus 54% of SR; p = 0.005). Information was rated sufficient to guide decision-making regarding surgery versus conservative therapy in 91% of FTR compared to 76% of SR (p = 0.018). Information extraction was rated easy in 69% of FTR compared to 50% of SRs (p = 0.007). FTR received higher scores for linguistic quality (mean 5.69 versus 5.09; p < 0.001). The key clinical questions were answered equally between reporting formats (p = 0.68). CONCLUSION: In PSMA PET/CT reporting, FTR consistently achieved higher ratings than template-based SR, with respect to overall report quality, clinical usefulness for management decisions, information retrieval, and linguistic quality. These findings underline that the performance of SR strongly depends on template design, implementation workflow, and local reporting expertise, and that SR tools require careful, indication-specific validation. KEY POINTS: Question Does SR improve the quality, completeness, interpretability, and clinical usefulness of PSMA PET/CT reports for PC staging compared with FTR? Findings FTR were rated superior to SR regarding clinical decision-making, completeness, report quality, and information retrieval. Relevance statement In PSMA PET/CT, report format directly affects the usability of imaging findings for therapeutic decision-making. The effectiveness of SR appears dependent on local reporting expertise and clinical context, underscoring the need for prospective, indication-specific validation before routine clinical implementation.
Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.