medvisМедицинская визуализацияMedical Visualization1607-07632408-9516RDS-Media Ltd.10.24835/1607-0763-1629medvis-1629Research ArticleМАЛЫЙ ТАЗSMALL PELVISОшибки при анализе данных МРТ органов малого таза: обзорErrors in the radiology of the pelvis: a reviewhttps://orcid.org/0009-0000-7748-1306КондаковИ. В.KondakovI. V.

Кондаков Игорь Викторович – врач-рентгенолог ООО “РУ-МИС”, Грозныйhttps://orcid.org/0009-0000-7748-1306

Igor V Kondakov – radiologist, LLC “RU-MIS”, Groznyhttps://orcid.org/0009-0000-7748-1306

kondakoviv@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6716-5593НечаевВ. А.NechaevV. A.

Нечаев Валентин Александрович – канд. мед. наук, заведующий центром комплексной диагностики ГБУЗ “ГКБ имени С.С. Юдина ДЗМ”, Москваhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6716-5593

Valentin A. Nechaev – Cand. of Sci. (Med.), Head of the Center for Complex Diagnostics, Yudin Moscow City Clinical Hospital, Moscowhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6716-5593

dfkz2005@gmail.comООО “РУ-МИС”РоссияLLC “RU-MIS”Russian FederationГБУЗ города Москвы “Городская клиническая больница имени С.С. Юдина” Департамента здравоохранения города МосквыРоссияYudin Moscow City Clinical HospitalRussian Federation2026050620263028996Copyright © Кондаков И.В., Нечаев В.А., 20262026Кондаков И.В., Нечаев В.А.Kondakov I.V., Nechaev V.A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://medvis.rdsmedia.ru/jour/article/view/1629Цель исследования

Цель исследования: cистематизировать данные об ошибках при анализе данных МРТ органов малого таза.

Материал и методы

Материал и методы. Проведен поиск научных публикаций в информационно-аналитических системах PubMed, e-library, Google Scholar за последние 15 лет по ключевым словам: “radiology errors in imaging of the pelvis”, “diagnostic errors in pelvic radiology”, “bias in radiology”, “pitfalls in radiology’, “radiology mistakes”, “pearls in radiology”, “ошибки в лучевой диагностике при исследовании малого таза”.

Результаты

Результаты. Проанализировано 36 статей, затрагивающих тему ошибок в лучевой диагностике органов малого таза. Были выделены этапы проведения лучевого исследования органов малого таза и перечислены основные ошибки на каждом из них: от подготовки пациента до интерпретации полученных данных. Кроме того, были выделены “подводные камни”, связанные с конкретной целью проведения исследования.

Заключение

Заключение. Ошибки и предпосылки для их возникновения при лучевом исследовании малого таза могут встречаться на разных этапах диагностического процесса. Рентгенологам, клиницистам и рентгенолаборантам необходимо иметь представление об особенностях ошибок на каждом этапе выполнения исследования для минимизации риска их возникновения и смягчения последствий.

Aim

Aim. To systematize data on errors in the pelvic radiology.

Methods

Methods. We searched for scientific publications in the information and analytical systems PubMed, e-library, Google Scholar over the past 15 years, using the keywords: “radiology errors in the pelvis imaging”, “diagnostic errors in pelvic radiology”, “bias in radiology”, “pitfalls in radiology”, “radiology mistakes”, “pearls in radiology”.

Results

Results. 36 articles dealing with errors in the pelvic radiology at various stages of examination were analyzed. The results of the analysis – the stages of the pelvic examination were highlighted and the main errors in each of them were listed.

Conclusion

Conclusion. Errors and the prerequisites for their occurrence in the pelvic imaging can occur at different stages of the diagnostic process. Radiologists, clinicians, and technicians need to be aware of the specifics of errors at each stage of the study in order to minimize the risk of their occurrence and mitigate the consequences.

магнитно-резонансная томографияошибкималый тазmagnetic resonance imagingerrorspelvisReferencesMakary M.A., Daniel M. Medical error: the third leading cause of death in the US. Br. Med. J. 2016; 353: i2139. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2139Makary M.A., Daniel M. Medical error: the third leading cause of death in the US. Br. Med. J. 2016; 353: i2139. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2139Нечаев В.А., Васильев А.Ю. Подходы к классификации диагностических ошибок в лучевой диагностике: обзор. Лучевая диагностика и терапия. 2024; 15 (2): 19–24. https://doi.org/10.22328/2079-5343-2024-15-2-19-24Nechaev V.A., Vasiliev A.Yu. Approaches to the classification of errors in radiology: a review. Diagnostic Radiology and Radiotherapy. 2024; 15 (2): 19–24. https://doi.org/10.22328/2079-5343-2024-15-2-19-24 (In Russian)Kim Y.W., Mansfield L.T. Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perpetuated errors. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014; 202 (3): 465–470. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11493Kim Y.W., Mansfield L.T. Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perpetuated errors. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014; 202 (3): 465–470. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11493Berlin L. Accuracy of diagnostic procedures: has it improved over the past five decades? Am. J. Roentgenol. 2007; 188 (5): 1173–1178. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.1270Berlin L. Accuracy of diagnostic procedures: has it improved over the past five decades? Am. J. Roentgenol. 2007; 188 (5): 1173–1178. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.1270Waite S., Grigorian A., Alexander R.G. et al. Analysis of Perceptual Expertise in Radiology – Current Knowledge and a New Perspective. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2019; 13: 213. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00213. Erratum in: Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2019; 13: 272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00272Waite S., Grigorian A., Alexander R.G. et al. Analysis of Perceptual Expertise in Radiology – Current Knowledge and a New Perspective. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2019; 13: 213. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00213. Erratum in: Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2019; 13: 272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00272Lehr J.L., Lodwick G.S., Farrell C. et al. Direct measurement of the effect of film miniaturization on diagnostic accuracy. Radiology. 1976; 118 (2): 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1148/118.2.257Lehr J.L., Lodwick G.S., Farrell C. et al. Direct measurement of the effect of film miniaturization on diagnostic accuracy. Radiology. 1976; 118 (2): 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1148/118.2.257Muhm J.R., Miller W.E., Fontana R.S. et al. Lung cancer detected during a screening program using four-month chest radiographs. Radiology. 1983; 148 (3): 609–615. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.148.3.6308709Muhm J.R., Miller W.E., Fontana R.S. et al. Lung cancer detected during a screening program using four-month chest radiographs. Radiology. 1983; 148 (3): 609–615. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.148.3.6308709Brady A.P. Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable? Insights. Imaging. 2017; 8 (1): 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-016-0534-1Brady A.P. Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable? Insights. Imaging. 2017; 8 (1): 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-016-0534-1Briggs G.M., Flynn P.A., Worthington M. et al. The role of specialist neuroradiology second opinion reporting: is there added value? Clin. Radiol. 2008; 63 (7): 791–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2007.12.002Briggs G.M., Flynn P.A., Worthington M. et al. The role of specialist neuroradiology second opinion reporting: is there added value? Clin. Radiol. 2008; 63 (7): 791–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2007.12.002Berlin L. Radiologic errors, past, present and future. Diagnosis (Berl.). 2014; 1 (1): 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2013-0012Berlin L. Radiologic errors, past, present and future. Diagnosis (Berl.). 2014; 1 (1): 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2013-0012Onder O., Yarasir Y., Azizova A. et al. Errors, discrepancies and underlying bias in radiology with case examples: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2021; 12 (1): 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-00986-8Onder O., Yarasir Y., Azizova A. et al. Errors, discrepancies and underlying bias in radiology with case examples: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2021; 12 (1): 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-00986-8Patra A., Premkumar M., Keshava S.N. et al. Radiology Reporting Errors: Learning from Report Addenda. Indian J. Radiol. Imaging. 2021; 31 (2): 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1734351Patra A., Premkumar M., Keshava S.N. et al. Radiology Reporting Errors: Learning from Report Addenda. Indian J. Radiol. Imaging. 2021; 31 (2): 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1734351Borgstede J.P., Lewis R.S., Bhargavan M., Sunshine J.H. RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2004; 1 (1): 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1546-1440(03)00002-4Borgstede J.P., Lewis R.S., Bhargavan M., Sunshine J.H. RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2004; 1 (1): 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1546-1440(03)00002-4Panebianco V., Giganti F., Kitzing Y.X. et al. An update of pitfalls in prostate mpMRI: a practical approach through the lens of PI-RADS v. 2 guidelines. Insights. into Imaging. 2018; 9 (1), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0578-xPanebianco V., Giganti F., Kitzing Y.X. et al. An update of pitfalls in prostate mpMRI: a practical approach through the lens of PI-RADS v. 2 guidelines. Insights. into Imaging. 2018; 9 (1), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0578-xPandey A., Ghosh S., Prajapati P. et al. Pearls and Pitfalls in Applying PI-RADS 2.1. J. Gastrointest. Abdominal. Radiol. 2024; 07. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1778636Pandey A., Ghosh S., Prajapati P. et al. Pearls and Pitfalls in Applying PI-RADS 2.1. J. Gastrointest. Abdominal. Radiol. 2024; 07. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1778636Lin W.C., Chen J.H. Pitfalls and Limitations of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Urinary Bladder Cancer. Transl. Oncol. 2015; 8 (3): 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2015.04.003Lin W.C., Chen J.H. Pitfalls and Limitations of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Urinary Bladder Cancer. Transl. Oncol. 2015; 8 (3): 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2015.04.003Laer, J., Lupi Manso N., França De Santana T. Santos P.O. Pitfalls and Limitations of the Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS): Challenges in the Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) Assessment of Bladder Cancer. Cureus. 2025; 17 (12) e99197. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.99197Laer, J., Lupi Manso N., França De Santana T. Santos P.O. Pitfalls and Limitations of the Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS): Challenges in the Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) Assessment of Bladder Cancer. Cureus. 2025; 17 (12) e99197. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.99197Thomassin-Naggara I., Belghitti M., Milon A., et al.; EURAD study group. O-RADS MRI score: analysis of misclassified cases in a prospective multicentric European cohort. Eur. Radiol. 2021; 31 (12): 9588–9599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08054-xThomassin-Naggara I., Belghitti M., Milon A., et al.; EURAD study group. O-RADS MRI score: analysis of misclassified cases in a prospective multicentric European cohort. Eur. Radiol. 2021; 31 (12): 9588–9599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08054-xWinarto H., Habiburrahman M., Siregar T.P., Nuryanto K.H. Magnetic resonance imaging pitfalls in determining myometrial invasion in stage I endometrial cancer: A case report and literature review. Radiol. Case Rep. 2022; 17 (8): 2680–2688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radcr.2022.05.021Winarto H., Habiburrahman M., Siregar T.P., Nuryanto K.H. Magnetic resonance imaging pitfalls in determining myometrial invasion in stage I endometrial cancer: A case report and literature review. Radiol. Case Rep. 2022; 17 (8): 2680–2688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radcr.2022.05.021Nougaret S., Razakamanantsoa L., Sadowski E.A. et al. O-RADS MRI risk stratification system: pearls and pitfalls. Insights Imaging. 2024; 15: 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01577-5Nougaret S., Razakamanantsoa L., Sadowski E.A. et al. O-RADS MRI risk stratification system: pearls and pitfalls. Insights Imaging. 2024; 15: 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01577-5Нечаев В.А., Васильев А.Ю. Факторы риска появления ошибок восприятия у врачей-рентгенологов при анализе лучевых исследований. Вестник СурГУ. Медицина. 2024; 17 (4): 14–22. https://doi.org/10.35266/2949-3447-2024-4-2Nechaev V.A., Vasilev A.Yu. Risk factors for development of perceptual errors in radiology. Vestnik SurGU. Meditsina. 2024;17(4):14-22. https://doi.org/10.35266/2949-3447-2024-4-2 (In Russian)Itri J.N., Tappouni R.R., McEachern R.O. et al. Fundamentals of Diagnostic Error in Imaging. RadioGraphics. 2018; 38 (6): 1845–1865. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018180021Itri J.N., Tappouni R.R., McEachern R.O. et al. Fundamentals of Diagnostic Error in Imaging. RadioGraphics. 2018; 38 (6): 1845–1865. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018180021Kielar A.Z., Duigenan S., Wolfman D.J. Errors in Imaging of the Acute Female Pelvis: Where Do They Occur and How Can We Reduce Them? In: Errors in Emergency and Trauma Radiology. Springer, 2019: 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05548-6_8Kielar A.Z., Duigenan S., Wolfman D.J. Errors in Imaging of the Acute Female Pelvis: Where Do They Occur and How Can We Reduce Them? In: Errors in Emergency and Trauma Radiology. Springer, 2019: 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05548-6_8Kostrubiak D.E., DeHay P.W., Ali N. et al. Body MRI Subspecialty Reinterpretations at a Tertiary Care Center: Discrepancy Rates and Error Types. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2020; 215 (6): 1384–1388. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.22797Kostrubiak D.E., DeHay P.W., Ali N. et al. Body MRI Subspecialty Reinterpretations at a Tertiary Care Center: Discrepancy Rates and Error Types. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2020; 215 (6): 1384–1388. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.22797Hansen, N.L., Koo, B.C., Gallagher, F.A. et al. Comparison of initial and tertiary centre second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate prior to repeat biopsy. Eur. Radiol. 2017; 27: 2259–2266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4635-5Hansen, N.L., Koo, B.C., Gallagher, F.A. et al. Comparison of initial and tertiary centre second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate prior to repeat biopsy. Eur. Radiol. 2017; 27: 2259–2266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4635-5Nougaret S., Tirumani S.H., Addley H. et al. Pearls and pitfalls in MRI of gynecologic malignancy with diffusion-weighted technique. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2013; 200 (2): 261–276. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9713Nougaret S., Tirumani S.H., Addley H. et al. Pearls and pitfalls in MRI of gynecologic malignancy with diffusion-weighted technique. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2013; 200 (2): 261–276. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9713Zhang L., Wen X., Li J.W. et al. Diagnostic error and bias in the department of radiology: a pictorial essay. Insights. Imaging. 2023; 14 (1): 163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01521-7Zhang L., Wen X., Li J.W. et al. Diagnostic error and bias in the department of radiology: a pictorial essay. Insights. Imaging. 2023; 14 (1): 163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01521-7Busby L.P., Courtier J.L., Glastonbury C.M. Bias in Radiology: The How and Why of Misses and Misinterpretations. Radiographics. 2018; 38 (1): 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018170107Busby L.P., Courtier J.L., Glastonbury C.M. Bias in Radiology: The How and Why of Misses and Misinterpretations. Radiographics. 2018; 38 (1): 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018170107Нечаев В.А., Васильев А.Ю. Частота и спектр ошибок рентгенолаборантов при проведении магнитно-резонансной томографии. Медицинская радиология и радиационная безопасность. 2025; 70 (6): 40–44. https://doi.org/10.33266/1024-6177-2025-70-6-40-44Nechaev V.A., Vasil’ev A.Yu. Incidence and Spectrum of Radiologic Technicians’ Errors in Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2025; 70 (6): 40–44. https://doi.org/10.33266/1024-6177-2025-70-6-40-44 (In Russian)Громов А.И., Корякин А.В., Каприн А.Д., Алексеев Б.Я., Сивков А.В., Толстов И.С. Ретроспективный анализ данных МРТ пациентов, перенесших фьюжн-биопсию предстательной железы. Медицинская визуализация. 2025; 29 (4): 107–119. https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-1573Gromov A.I., Koryakin A.V., Kaprin A.D. et al. Retrospective Analysis of MRI Data in Patients Undergoing Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate. Medical Visualization. 2025; 29 (4): 107–119. https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-1573 (In Russian)Horta M., Cunha T.M. Pitfalls in Imaging of Female Pelvic Masses. Curr. Radiol. Rep. 2017; 5: 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-017-0245-5Horta M., Cunha T.M. Pitfalls in Imaging of Female Pelvic Masses. Curr. Radiol. Rep. 2017; 5: 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-017-0245-5Zand K.R., Reinhold C., Haider M.A. et al. Artifacts and pitfalls in MR imaging of the pelvis. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2007; 26 (3): 480–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20996. PMID: 17623875Zand K.R., Reinhold C., Haider M.A. et al. Artifacts and pitfalls in MR imaging of the pelvis. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2007; 26 (3): 480–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20996. PMID: 17623875Sheikh-Sarraf M., Nougaret S., Forstner R., Kubik-Huch R.A. Patient preparation and image quality in female pelvic MRI: recommendations revisited. Eur. Radiol. 2020; 30 (10): 5374–5383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06869-8Sheikh-Sarraf M., Nougaret S., Forstner R., Kubik-Huch R.A. Patient preparation and image quality in female pelvic MRI: recommendations revisited. Eur. Radiol. 2020; 30 (10): 5374–5383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06869-8Glanc P., O’Hayon B.E., Singh D.K. et al. Challenges of Pelvic Imaging in Obese Women. RadioGraphics. 2012; 32 (6): 1839–1862. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.326125510Glanc P., O’Hayon B.E., Singh D.K. et al. Challenges of Pelvic Imaging in Obese Women. RadioGraphics. 2012; 32 (6): 1839–1862. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.326125510Wani A.H., Choh N.A., Syed H.M. et al. Pitfalls and Challenges in the Interpretation of Rectal Cancer Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J. Gastrointestinal. Abdominal. Radiol. ISGAR. 2025; 8: 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0045-1802320Wani A.H., Choh N.A., Syed H.M. et al. Pitfalls and Challenges in the Interpretation of Rectal Cancer Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J. Gastrointestinal. Abdominal. Radiol. ISGAR. 2025; 8: 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0045-1802320Shiraiwa M., Joja I., Asakawa T. et al. Cervical carcinoma: efficacy of thin-section oblique axial T2-weighted images for evaluating parametrial invasion. Abdom. Imaging. 1999; 24: 514–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002619900552Shiraiwa M., Joja I., Asakawa T. et al. Cervical carcinoma: efficacy of thin-section oblique axial T2-weighted images for evaluating parametrial invasion. Abdom. Imaging. 1999; 24: 514–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002619900552Owens E.J., Taylor N.R., Howlett D.C. Perceptual type error in everyday practice. Clin. Radiol. 2016; 71 (6): 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.11.024Owens E.J., Taylor N.R., Howlett D.C. Perceptual type error in everyday practice. Clin. Radiol. 2016; 71 (6): 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.11.024Учеваткин А.А., Юдин А.Л., Афанасьева Н.И., Юматова Е.А. Оттенки серого: как и почему мы ошибаемся. Медицинская визуализация. 2020; 24 (3): 123–145. https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-2020-3-123-145Uchevatkin A.A., Yudin A.L., Afanas'yeva N.I., Yumatova E.A. Shades of grey: how and why we make mistakes. Medical Visualization. 2020;24(3):123-145. https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-2020-3-123-145 (In Russian)Itri J.N., Tappouni R.R., McEachern R.O. et al. Fundamentals of Diagnostic Error in Imaging. Radiographics. 2018; 38 (6): 1845–1865. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018180021Itri J.N., Tappouni R.R., McEachern R.O. et al. Fundamentals of Diagnostic Error in Imaging. Radiographics. 2018; 38 (6): 1845–1865. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018180021Robbins J., Kusmirek J., Barroilhet L. et al. Pitfalls in Imaging of Cervical Cancer. Sem. Roentgenol. 2016; 51 (1): 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ro.2015.11.001Robbins J., Kusmirek J., Barroilhet L. et al. Pitfalls in Imaging of Cervical Cancer. Sem. Roentgenol. 2016; 51 (1): 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ro.2015.11.001Chung A.D., Schieda N., Shanbhogue A.K. et al. MRI evaluation of the urothelial tract: pitfalls and solutions. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2016; 207 (6): W108–W116. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16348Chung A.D., Schieda N., Shanbhogue A.K. et al. MRI evaluation of the urothelial tract: pitfalls and solutions. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2016; 207 (6): W108–W116. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16348Wani A.H., Choh N.A., Syed H.M. et al. Pitfalls and Challenges in the Interpretation of Rectal Cancer Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J. Gastrointest. Abdom. Radiol. 2025; 8 (2): 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0045-1802320Wani A.H., Choh N.A., Syed H.M. et al. Pitfalls and Challenges in the Interpretation of Rectal Cancer Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J. Gastrointest. Abdom. Radiol. 2025; 8 (2): 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0045-1802320el Khababi N., Beets-Tan R.G.H., Curvo-Semedo L. et al. Pearls and pitfalls of structured staging and reporting of rectal cancer on MRI: an international multireader study. Br. J. Radiol. 2023; 96 (1150): 20230091. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20230091el Khababi N., Beets-Tan R.G.H., Curvo-Semedo L. et al. Pearls and pitfalls of structured staging and reporting of rectal cancer on MRI: an international multireader study. Br. J. Radiol. 2023; 96 (1150): 20230091. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20230091Srisajjakul S., Prapaisilp P., Bangchokdee S. Pitfalls in MRI of rectal cancer: What radiologists need to know and avoid. Clin. Imaging. 2018; 50: 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.11.012Srisajjakul S., Prapaisilp P., Bangchokdee S. Pitfalls in MRI of rectal cancer: What radiologists need to know and avoid. Clin. Imaging. 2018; 50: 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.11.012Lai A.L., Law Y.M. VI-RADS in bladder cancer: Overview, pearls and pitfalls. Eur. J. Radiol. 2023; 160: 110666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110666Lai A.L., Law Y.M. VI-RADS in bladder cancer: Overview, pearls and pitfalls. Eur. J. Radiol. 2023; 160: 110666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110666Shelmerdine S.C., Lorenzo A.J., Gupta A.A., Chavhan G.B. Pearls and pitfalls in diagnosing pediatric urinary bladder masses. Radiographics. 2017; 37 (6): 1872–1891. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017170031Shelmerdine S.C., Lorenzo A.J., Gupta A.A., Chavhan G.B. Pearls and pitfalls in diagnosing pediatric urinary bladder masses. Radiographics. 2017; 37 (6): 1872–1891. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017170031Otero-García M.M., Mesa-Álvarez A., Nikolic O. et al. Role of MRI in staging and follow-up of endometrial and cervical cancer: pitfalls and mimickers. Insights. Imaging. 2019; 10 (1): 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0696-8Otero-García M.M., Mesa-Álvarez A., Nikolic O. et al. Role of MRI in staging and follow-up of endometrial and cervical cancer: pitfalls and mimickers. Insights. Imaging. 2019; 10 (1): 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0696-8Kim D.Y., Nam G., Lee S.R. et al. Congenital Obstructive Müllerian Anomaly: The pitfalls of a magnetic resonance imaging-based diagnosis and the importance of intraoperative biopsy. J. Clin. Med. 2021; 10 (11): 2414. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10112414Kim D.Y., Nam G., Lee S.R. et al. Congenital Obstructive Müllerian Anomaly: The pitfalls of a magnetic resonance imaging-based diagnosis and the importance of intraoperative biopsy. J. Clin. Med. 2021; 10 (11): 2414. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10112414Panebianco V., Barchetti F., Barentsz J. et al. Pitfalls in interpreting mp-MRI of the prostate: a pictorial review with pathologic correlation. Insights Imaging. 2015; 6 (6): 611–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-015-0426-9Panebianco V., Barchetti F., Barentsz J. et al. Pitfalls in interpreting mp-MRI of the prostate: a pictorial review with pathologic correlation. Insights Imaging. 2015; 6 (6): 611–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-015-0426-9Weitzler A., Zuñiga A. Pitfalls en RM de Próstata Multiparamétrica. Rev. Chil. Radiol. 2019; 25 (4): 128–140. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-93082019000400128Weitzler A., Zuñiga A. Pitfalls en RM de Próstata Multiparamétrica. Rev. Chil. Radiol. 2019; 25 (4): 128–140. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-93082019000400128Purysko A.S., Childes B.J., Ward R.D. et al. Pitfalls in Prostate MRI Interpretation: A Pictorial Review. Semin. Roentgenol. 2021; 56 (4): 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ro.2021.08.003Purysko A.S., Childes B.J., Ward R.D. et al. Pitfalls in Prostate MRI Interpretation: A Pictorial Review. Semin. Roentgenol. 2021; 56 (4): 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ro.2021.08.003Eusebi L., Carpagnano F.A., Sortino G. et al. Prostate Multiparametric MRI: Common Pitfalls in Primary Diagnosis and How to Avoid Them. Curr. Radiol. Rep. 2021; 9: 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-021-00378-2Eusebi L., Carpagnano F.A., Sortino G. et al. Prostate Multiparametric MRI: Common Pitfalls in Primary Diagnosis and How to Avoid Them. Curr. Radiol. Rep. 2021; 9: 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-021-00378-2Rosenkrantz A.B., Taneja S.S. Radiologist, be aware: ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014; 202 (1): 109–120. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.10699Rosenkrantz A.B., Taneja S.S. Radiologist, be aware: ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014; 202 (1): 109–120. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.10699

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.