Survey reveals need for structured reporting system in pediatric tumors, indicating pBT-RADS may improve clarity and consistency.
Currently, there are no standards for clinical radiology reporting in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology. To determine the satisfaction among stakeholders regarding our current reporting methods, which do not include a specific structured template, we conducted a survey regarding the current state of neuro-oncologic imaging reporting at our institution. The initial survey involved 18 clinicians including pediatric neuro-oncologists, neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, and neuroradiologists using a 5-point Likert scale with 5 representing the most positive response and 1 representing the least positive response. The median score for clear communication of results was 4 (interquartile range of 3-4). However, the median score for maintaining consistency was 3 (IQR 2-4), and the median score for refraining from ambiguity was 3 (IQR 4-3). Additionally, respondents endorsed the desire to have a structured format for both findings and an impression, particularly which would correlate with patient management. The Brain Tumor Reporting and Data System (BT-RADS) was developed to maximize consistency between reading radiologists and clarity of reports. However, currently the application of BT-RADS in the pediatric population has not been explored and may be limited due to the unique pathology and imaging features of pediatric brain tumors. Here, we introduce a pediatric brain tumor reporting and data system (pBT-RADS), which is adapted from BT-RADS, accounts for factors specific to pediatric tumors, and incorporates RAPNO criteria. We discuss specific pediatric tumors where using BT-RADS is limited, such as medulloblastoma, craniopharyngioma, and pediatric high and low grade gliomas, and how our proposed pBT-RADS addresses these issues. Future evaluation and implementation of pBT-RADS in practice will further refine our template and will allow us to determine the acceptance and utility in routine clinical use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goldman-Yassen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: