scholarly journals ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 5404-5416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maarten de Rooij ◽  
Bas Israël ◽  
Marcia Tummers ◽  
Hashim U. Ahmed ◽  
Tristan Barrett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Image Quality ◽  
Image Quality Assessment ◽  
Image Acquisition ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Performance Assessments ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Prostate Mri ◽  
Consensus Statements ◽  
Hands On

Abstract Objectives This study aims to define consensus-based criteria for acquiring and reporting prostate MRI and establishing prerequisites for image quality. Methods A total of 44 leading urologists and urogenital radiologists who are experts in prostate cancer imaging from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI) participated in a Delphi consensus process. Panellists completed two rounds of questionnaires with 55 items under three headings: image quality assessment, interpretation and reporting, and radiologists’ experience plus training centres. Of 55 questions, 31 were rated for agreement on a 9-point scale, and 24 were multiple-choice or open. For agreement items, there was consensus agreement with an agreement ≥ 70% (score 7–9) and disagreement of ≤ 15% of the panellists. For the other questions, a consensus was considered with ≥ 50% of votes. Results Twenty-four out of 31 of agreement items and 11/16 of other questions reached consensus. Agreement statements were (1) reporting of image quality should be performed and implemented into clinical practice; (2) for interpretation performance, radiologists should use self-performance tests with histopathology feedback, compare their interpretation with expert-reading and use external performance assessments; and (3) radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses before interpreting prostate MRI. Limitations are that the results are expert opinions and not based on systematic reviews or meta-analyses. There was no consensus on outcomes statements of prostate MRI assessment as quality marker. Conclusions An ESUR and ESUI expert panel showed high agreement (74%) on issues improving prostate MRI quality. Checking and reporting of image quality are mandatory. Prostate radiologists should attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular performance assessments. Key Points • Multi-parametric MRI in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer has a well-established upfront role in the recently updated European Association of Urology guideline and American Urological Association recommendations. • Suboptimal image acquisition and reporting at an individual level will result in clinicians losing confidence in the technique and returning to the (non-MRI) systematic biopsy pathway. Therefore, it is crucial to establish quality criteria for the acquisition and reporting of mpMRI. • To ensure high-quality prostate MRI, experts consider checking and reporting of image quality mandatory. Prostate radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular self- and external performance assessments.

scholarly journals Prospective Image Quality and Lesion Assessment in the Setting of MR-Guided Radiation Therapy of Prostate Cancer on an MR-Linac at 1.5 T: A Comparison to a Standard 3 T MRI

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 1533
Author(s):  
Haidara Almansour ◽  
Saif Afat ◽  
Victor Fritz ◽  
Fritz Schick ◽  
Marcel Nachbar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Image Quality ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Lesion Size ◽  
Geometric Distortion ◽  
Diagnostic Confidence ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Lesion Conspicuity

The objective of this study is to conduct a qualitative and a quantitative image quality and lesion evaluation in patients undergoing MR-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) for prostate cancer on a hybrid magnetic resonance imaging and linear accelerator system (MR-Linac or MRL) at 1.5 Tesla. This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board. A total of 13 consecutive patients with biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer and an indication for MRgRT were included. Prior to radiation therapy, each patient underwent an MR-examination on an MRL and on a standard MRI scanner at 3 Tesla (MRI3T). Three readers (two radiologists and a radiation oncologist) conducted an independent qualitative and quantitative analysis of T2-weighted (T2w) and diffusion-weighted images (DWI). Qualitative outcome measures were as follows: zonal anatomy, capsule demarcation, resolution, visibility of the seminal vesicles, geometric distortion, artifacts, overall image quality, lesion conspicuity, and diagnostic confidence. All ratings were performed on an ordinal 4-point Likert scale. Lesion conspicuity and diagnostic confidence were firstly analyzed only on MRL. Afterwards, these outcome parameters were analyzed in consensus with the MRI3T. Quantitative outcome measures were as follows: anteroposterior and right left diameter of the prostate, lesion size, PI-RADS score (Prostate Imaging—Reporting and Data System) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of the lesions. Intergroup comparisons were computed using the Wilcoxon-sign rank test and t tests. A post-hoc regression analysis was computed for lesion evaluation. Finally, inter-/intra-reader agreement was analyzed using the Fleiss kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient. For T2w images, the MRL showed good results across all quality criteria (median 3 and 4). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between MRL and MRI3T regarding capsule demarcation or geometric distortion. For the DWI, the MRL performed significantly less than MRI3T across most image quality criteria with a median ranging between 2 and 3. However, there were no significant differences between MRL and MRI3T regarding geometric distortion. In terms of lesion conspicuity and diagnostic confidence, inter-reader agreement was fair for MRL alone (Kappa = 0.42) and good for MRL in consensus with MRI3T (Kappa = 0.708). Thus, lesion conspicuity and diagnostic confidence could be significantly improved when reading MRL images in consensus with MRI3T (Odds ratio: 9- to 11-fold for the T2w images and 5- to 8–fold for the DWI) (p < 0.001). For measures of lesion size, anterior-posterior and right-left prostate diameter, inter-reader and intersequence agreement were excellent (ICC > 0.90) and there were no significant differences between MRL and MRI3T among all three readers. In terms of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) scoring, no significant differences were observed between MRL and MRI3T. Finally, there was a significant positive linear relationship between lesion ADC measurements (r = 0.76, p < 0.01) between the ADC values measured on both systems. In conclusion, image quality for T2w was comparable and diagnostic even without administration of spasmolytic- or contrast agents, while DWI images did not reach diagnostic level and need to be optimized for further exploitation in the setting of MRgRT. Diagnostic confidence and lesion conspicuity were significantly improved by reading MRL in consensus with MRI3T which would be advisable for a safe planning and treatment workflow. Finally, ADC measurements of lesions on both systems were comparable indicating that, lesion ADC as measured on the MRL could be used as a biomarker for evaluation of treatment response, similar to examinations using MRI3T.

scholarly journals Patient doses and image quality in chest radiography: The influence of different beam qualities

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 48-52
Author(s):  
Olivera Ciraj-Bjelac ◽  
Milan Loncar ◽  
Dusko Kosutic ◽  
Milojko Kovacevic ◽  
Danijela Arandjic
Keyword(s):  
Image Quality ◽  
Image Quality Assessment ◽  
Beam Quality ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Simple Method ◽  
A Value ◽  
Radiographic Technique ◽  
Patient Doses ◽  
Area Product ◽  
Dose Measurements

A simple method of assessing optimal X-ray beam quality in respect to patient exposure and image quality in chest screen-film radiography is presented here. Different beam qualities were generated by the use of various combinations of tube voltages (70 kV to 110 kV) and Al and Cu filter thick nesses. Patient doses were assessed by kerma-area product measurements. Simultaneously, image quality was evaluated by a twofold method: a clinical study applying European quality criteria for the radiographic technique of image on image of 126 patients and a multifunctional home-made dosimetric phantom with embedded test objects. The quantification of image quality criteria yields a simpler method of optimizing image quality and patient dose relationships. Modifications of radiographic practice, based on image quality assessment and dose measurements, resulted in significant dose reductions and preservation of image quality. Through the use of harder beam quality, dose reduction of up to a value of factor 3 were observed, compared to the doses from previously used radiographic techniques, implying that sufficient image quality does not necessarily imply higher doses. As a result of the optimization process, an optimal radiographic technique was suggested.

Foil-hole and data image quality assessment in 3DEM: Towards high-throughput image acquisition in the electron microscope

2016 ◽  
Vol 196 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Vargas ◽  
E. Franken ◽  
C.O.S. Sorzano ◽  
J. Gomez-Blanco ◽  
R. Schoenmakers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Electron Microscope ◽  
Image Quality ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
High Throughput ◽  
Image Quality Assessment ◽  
Image Acquisition

scholarly journals Designing an Herbarium Digitisation Workflow with Built-In Image Quality Management

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abraham Nieva de la Hidalga ◽  
Paul Rosin ◽  
Xianfang Sun ◽  
Ann Bogaerts ◽  
Niko De Meeter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Image Quality ◽  
Modular Design ◽  
Image Quality Assessment ◽  
Digital Images ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Audit Trail ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Strong Focus ◽  
Standards And Guidelines

Digitisation of natural history collections has evolved from creating databases for the recording of specimens’ catalogue and label data to include digital images of specimens. This has been driven by several important factors, such as a need to increase global accessibility to specimens and to preserve the original specimens by limiting their manual handling. The size of the collections pointed to the need of high throughput digitisation workflows. However, digital imaging of large numbers of fragile specimens is an expensive and time-consuming process that should be performed only once. To achieve this, the digital images produced need to be useful for the largest set of applications possible and have a potentially unlimited shelf life. The constraints on digitisation speed need to be balanced against the applicability and longevity of the images, which, in turn, depend directly on the quality of those images. As a result, the quality criteria that specimen images need to fulfil influence the design, implementation and execution of digitisation workflows. Different standards and guidelines for producing quality research images from specimens have been proposed; however, their actual adaptation to suit the needs of different types of specimens requires further analysis. This paper presents the digitisation workflow implemented by Meise Botanic Garden (MBG). This workflow is relevant because of its modular design, its strong focus on image quality assessment, its flexibility that allows combining in-house and outsourced digitisation, processing, preservation and publishing facilities and its capacity to evolve for integrating alternative components from different sources. The design and operation of the digitisation workflow is provided to showcase how it was derived, with particular attention to the built-in audit trail within the workflow, which ensures the scalable production of high-quality specimen images and how this audit trail ensures that new modules do not affect either the speed of imaging or the quality of the images produced.

scholarly journals FACTORS, CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS FOR FINE QUALITY OF AERIAL IMAGERY, OBTAINED FOR MAPPING PURPOSES

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 104-119
Author(s):  
Irina A. Anikeeva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Image Quality ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Visual Inspection ◽  
Image Quality Assessment ◽  
Random Noise ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Aerial Imagery ◽  
Aerial Images ◽  
Automatic Methods

Fine image quality assessment of aerial imagery, obtained for mapping purposes, is a relevant problem today. The purpose of this article is development the criteria system of fine image quality assessment of aerial topographic imagery and set requirements to them. The article discusses a set of factors that determine the fine image quality - natural surveying conditions, its technical and technological conditions and parameters. The article carries out the analysis of how these factors influence on aerial imagery and shows the main defects of images caused by them – such as blurring, haze, loss of information in highlights and shadows, high random noise, color disbalance. The article defines the ways for identifying these defects and assessing their influence on the fine quality of aerial imagery both visual and automatic methods. It is shown that image fine quality assessment must be carried out in terms of structural and gradation (photographic) characteristics. It is also shown that, in addition to the above characteristics, fine quality of aerial images can be influenced by random factors, the appearance of which cannot be predicted. Defects caused by these factors are revealed by operator’s visual inspection. The requirements for several fine image quality criteria, which allow to establish this research phase, are given.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document