Abstract:Objectives: With the widespread clinical application of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), there has been an increasing demand for lesion detection and accurate diagnosis in prostate MR, which relies heavily on satisfactory image quality. Focusing on the primary sequences involved in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), this study have evaluated common quality issues in clinical practice (such as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), artifacts, boundaries, and enhancement). The aim of the study was to determine the impact of image quality on clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection, positive predictive value (PPV) and radiologist's diagnosis in different sequences and prostate zones. Methods: This retrospective study included 306 patients who underwent prostate MRI with definitive pathological reports from February 2021 to December 2022. All histopathological specimens were evaluated according to the recommendations of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP). An ISUP Grade Group ≥ 2 was considered as csPCa. Three radiologists from different centers respectively performed a binary classification assessment of image quality in the following ten aspects: (1) T2WI in the axial plane: SNR, prostate boundary conditions, the presence of artifacts; (2) T2WI in the sagittal or coronal plane: prostate boundary conditions; (3) DWI: SNR, delineation between the peripheral and transition zone, the presence of artifacts, the matching of DWI and T2WI images; (4) DCE: the evaluation of obturator artery enhancement, the evaluation of dynamic contrast enhancement. Fleiss' Kappa was used to determine the inter-reader agreement. Wilson's 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used to calculate PPV. Chi-square test was used to calculate statistical significance. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: High-quality images had a higher csPCa detection rate (56.5% to 64.3%) in axial T2WI, DWI, and DCE, with significant statistical differences in SNR in axial T2WI (p 0.002), the presence of artifacts in axial T2WI (p 0.044), the presence of artifacts in DWI (p < 0.001), and the matching of DWI and T2WI images (p < 0.001). High-quality images had a higher PPV (72.5% to 78.8%) and showed significant statistical significance in axial T2WI, DWI, and DCE. Additionally, we found that PI-RADS 3 (24.0% to 52.9%) contained more low-quality images compared to PI-RADS 4-5 (20.6% to 39.3%), with significant statistical differences in the prostate boundary conditions in axial T2WI (p 0.048) and the presence of artifacts in DWI (p 0.001). Regarding the relationship between csPCa detection and image quality in different prostate zones, this study found that significant statistical differences were only observed between high- (63.5% to 75.7%) and low-quality (30.0% to 50.0%) images in the peripheral zone (PZ). Conclusion: Prostate MRI quality may have an impact on the diagnostic performance. The poorer image quality is associated with lower csPCa detection rates and PPV, which can lead to an increase in radiologist's ambiguous diagnosis (PI-RADS 3), especially for the lesions located at PZ.

PI-QUAL version 2: A Multi-Reader reproducibility study on multiparametric MRI from a tertiary referral center

Prostate MRI quality: clinical impact of the PI-QUAL score in prostate cancer diagnostic work-up

Multiparametric Prostate MRI Accuracy of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (v2.1) Scores 4 and 5: The Influence of Image Quality According to the Prostate Imaging Quality Score

PI-QUAL version 2: an update of a standardised scoring system for the assessment of image quality of prostate MRI

Inter-Reader Variability Using PI-RADS v2 Versus PI-RADS v2.1: Most New Disagreement Stems from Scores 1 and 2

MRI-based monitoring of prostate cancer after HIFU: Inter-reader agreement and diagnostic performance of the PI-FAB score

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and the value of experience: An intrareader variability study

The Efficiency of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpmri) Using PI-RADS Version 2 in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

Inter-reader reliability and diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS scoring between academic and community care networks: How wide is the gap?

Diagnostic Efficacy and Interobserver Agreement among Readers with Variable Experience of the Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting System with Whole-Mount Histology after Androgen Deprivation Therapy As a Reference

An MRI assessment of prostate cancer local recurrence using the PI-RR system: diagnostic accuracy, inter-observer reliability among readers with variable experience, and correlation with PSA values

PI-RADS Versions 2 and 2.1: Interobserver Agreement and Diagnostic Performance in Peripheral and Transition Zone Lesions Among Six Radiologists

Diagnostic Accuracy and Interobserver Agreement of PI-RADS Version 2 and Version 2.1 for the Detection of Transition Zone Prostate Cancers

Picture Perfect: The Status of Image Quality in Prostate MRI

Update on PI-RADS Version 2.1 Diagnostic Performance Benchmarks for Prostate MRI: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Concordance Between the Expert Reading of Biparametric-MRI and the Non-Expert Multiparametric-MRI for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Clinical Implications

The value of multiparametric MRI examination using 1.5T and 3.0T with PI-RADS (version 2) in the qualitative diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer

Impact of prostate MRI image quality on diagnostic performance for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa)

Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for detection of prostate cancer with targeted MRI-TRUS fusion-guided biopsy

Machine learning-based analysis of a semi-automated PI-RADS v2.1 scoring for prostate cancer

ESR Essentials: using the right scoring system in prostate MRI—practice recommendations by ESUR