Ошибки при анализе данных МРТ органов малого таза: обзор

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

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. 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. 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.

1. Makary 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.i2139

2. Нечаев 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/10.22328/2079-5343-2024-15-2-19-24

3. 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.13.11493

4. Berlin 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.06.1270

5. Waite 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.2019.00272

6. Lehr 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/10.1148/118.2.257

7. Muhm 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.148.3.6308709

8. Brady A.P. Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable? Insights. Imaging. 2017; 8 (1): 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-016-0534-1

9. Briggs 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.2007.12.002

10. Berlin L. Radiologic errors, past, present and future. Diagnosis (Berl.). 2014; 1 (1): 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2013-0012

11. Onder 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/s13244-021-00986-8

12. Patra 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-0041-1734351

13. Borgstede 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)00002-4

14. Panebianco 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-x

15. Pandey 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-0043-1778636

16. Lin 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.2015.04.003

17. Laer, 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.99197

18. Thomassin-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-x

19. Winarto 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.2022.05.021

20. Nougaret 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/s13244-023-01577-5

21. Нечаев 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/10.35266/2949-3447-2024-4-2

22. 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.2018180021

23. Kielar 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_8

24. Kostrubiak 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.20.22797

25. Hansen, 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/s00330-016-4635-5

26. Nougaret 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.12.9713

27. Zhang 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/s13244-023-01521-7

28. Busby 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.2018170107

29. Нечаев 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/10.33266/1024-6177-2025-70-6-40-44

30. 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/10.24835/1607-0763-1573

31. Horta M., Cunha T.M. Pitfalls in Imaging of Female Pelvic Masses. Curr. Radiol. Rep. 2017; 5: 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-017-0245-5

32. Zand 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: 17623875

33. Sheikh-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/s00330-020-06869-8

34. Glanc 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.326125510

35. Wani 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-0045-1802320

36. Shiraiwa 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/s002619900552

37. Owens 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.2015.11.024

38. Учеваткин 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/10.24835/1607-0763-2020-3-123-145

39. 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.2018180021

40. Robbins 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.2015.11.001

41. Chung 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.16.16348

42. Wani 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-0045-1802320

43. el 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.20230091

44. Srisajjakul 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.2017.11.012

45. Lai 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.2022.110666

46. Shelmerdine 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.2017170031

47. Otero-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/s13244-019-0696-8

48. Kim 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/jcm10112414

49. Panebianco 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/s13244-015-0426-9

50. Weitzler A., Zuñiga A. Pitfalls en RM de Próstata Multiparamétrica. Rev. Chil. Radiol. 2019; 25 (4): 128–140. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-93082019000400128

51. Purysko 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.2021.08.003

52. Eusebi 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/s40134-021-00378-2

53. Rosenkrantz 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