Perceptions of radiologists on structured reporting for cancer imaging—a survey by the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI)

Objectives To assess radiologists' current use of, and opinions on, structured reporting (SR) in oncologic imaging, and to provide recommendations for a structured report template.Materials and methods An online survey with 28 questions was sent to European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) members. The questionnaire had four main parts: (1) participant information, e.g., country, workplace, experience, and current SR use; (2) SR design, e.g., numbers of sections and fields, and template use; (3) clinical impact of SR, e.g., on report quality and length, workload, and communication with clinicians; and (4) preferences for an oncology-focused structured CT report. Data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and Spearman correlation coefficients.Results A total of 200 radiologists from 51 countries completed the survey: 57.0% currently utilized SR (57%), with a lower proportion within than outside of Europe (51.0 vs. 72.7%; p = 0.006). Among SR users, the majority observed markedly increased report quality (62.3%) and easier comparison to previous exams (53.5%), a slightly lower error rate (50.9%), and fewer calls/emails by clinicians (78.9%) due to SR. The perceived impact of SR on communication with clinicians (i.e., frequency of calls/emails) differed with radiologists' experience (p < 0.001), and experience also showed low but significant correlations with communication with clinicians (r = - 0.27, p = 0.003), report quality (r = 0.19, p = 0.043), and error rate (r = - 0.22, p = 0.016). Template use also affected the perceived impact of SR on report quality (p = 0.036).Conclusion Radiologists regard SR in oncologic imaging favorably, with perceived positive effects on report quality, error rate, comparison of serial exams, and communication with clinicians.Clinical relevance statement Radiologists believe that structured reporting in oncologic imaging improves report quality, decreases the error rate, and enables better communication with clinicians. Implementation of structured reporting in Europe is currently below the international level and needs society endorsement.