Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To compare an International Federation of Gyneology and Obstetrics (FIGO)-anchored structured MRI report with conventional narrative reporting for cervical cancer staging by evaluating referring clinicians' satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective multicentre crossover study (January-June 2024), consecutive patients with biopsy-proven cervical cancer at any FIGO stage underwent staging MRI at five European centres. For each patient, one narrative and one structured report were produced and independently evaluated by gynaecologists and radiation oncologists using a 12-item questionnaire (5-point Likert scale): five general items (Q1-Q5) for both formats and seven feature-specific items (Q6-Q12) for structured reports only. The primary endpoint was the proportion of structured-report evaluations with an overall score ≥ 20 (target ≥ 80%). Paired comparisons used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with matched-pairs rank-biserial correlation (r) as effect size. RESULTS: One hundred patients were evaluated, yielding 200 report evaluations. Of 100 structured report evaluations, 98.0% (95% Clopper-Pearson CI: 93.0-99.8%) achieved an overall score ≥ 20, exceeding the 80% threshold, vs 78.0% (95% CI: 68.6-85.7%) for narrative reports. Structured reports scored significantly higher on all five general items and on the overall score (all p < 0.05), with the largest effects for readability (r = 0.95) and brevity (r = 0.85). The advantage was consistent across reader type, disease stage, and centre, with the strongest effect in locally advanced disease. Q6 (cervical stromal invasion) had the lowest feature-specific satisfaction (73.7% scoring ≥ 4), prompting template revision. CONCLUSION: A structured MRI report for cervical cancer staging significantly outperformed narrative reporting across all quality domains in a multicentre crossover design. KEY POINTS: Question Cervical cancer management is highly stage-dependent, yet evidence on clinician-centred benefit of structured vs narrative MRI staging reports in routine practice is scarce. Findings In a multicentre crossover study, a FIGO-anchored structured MRI report significantly outperformed narrative reporting on all five general quality domains. Clinical relevance A structured MRI report standardises the communication of staging features that drive cervical cancer management and is preferred by referring clinicians over narrative reporting across specialties, disease stages, and European centres.
Source: European Radiology
Authors: Luca Russo, Roxana Pintican, Ramona Woitek, Teresa Margarida Cunha, Milagros Otero-Garcia, Susan Freeman, Giacomo Avesani, Iztok Caglic, Doris Leithner, Marius E. Mayerhoefer, Pietro Andrea Bonaffini, Thierry N. Boellaard, Arnaldo Stanzione, Melvin D’Anastasi, Benedetta Gui, Evis Sala, Stephanie Nougaret, Structured Report in Cervical Cancer (StReCC) study group, Amreen Shakur, Li Tee Tan, Helen Bolton, Rosa Autorino, Nicolò Bizzarri, Beatrice Carreri, Lúcia Correia, Raul Colaço, Mathias Neron, Pierre Emmanuel Colombo, Sylvain Demontoy, Alejandra Garcia-Baizan, Gloria Cordeiro-Vidal, Elena Hernandez-Piñeiro
Institutions: Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Danube Private University, Instituto Português de Oncologia Francisco Gentil, University Hospital Complex Of Vigo, University of Cambridge, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University College Hospital, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University College London, New York University, Medical University of Vienna, Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII, University of Milano-Bicocca, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, University of Naples Federico II, University of Malta, Mater Dei Hospital, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Inserm, Université de Montpellier, Institut de Recherche en Cancérologie de Montpellier
Language: English
Subfield: Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $2,890
OpenAlex ID: W7225419748