Interobserver reproducibility of the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score for prostate MRI quality

2021 ◽  
Vol 79 ◽  
pp. S1282-S1283
Author(s):  
F. Giganti ◽  
E. Dinneen ◽  
V. Kasivisvanathan ◽  
A. Haider ◽  
A. Freeman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interobserver Reproducibility ◽  
Prostate Mri ◽  
Imaging Quality ◽  
Prostate Imaging

scholarly journals Understanding PI-QUAL for prostate MRI quality: a practical primer for radiologists

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Giganti ◽  
Alex Kirkham ◽  
Veeru Kasivisvanathan ◽  
Marianthi-Vasiliki Papoutsaki ◽  
Shonit Punwani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diffusion Weighted Imaging ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
High Signal ◽  
Diagnostic Quality ◽  
Prostate Mri ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Dynamic Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Diffusion Weighted ◽  
Contrast Enhanced

AbstractProstate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of high diagnostic quality is a key determinant for either detection or exclusion of prostate cancer. Adequate high spatial resolution on T2-weighted imaging, good diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences of high signal-to-noise ratio are the prerequisite for a high-quality MRI study of the prostate. The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score was created to assess the diagnostic quality of a scan against a set of objective criteria as per Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System recommendations, together with criteria obtained from the image. The PI-QUAL score is a 1-to-5 scale where a score of 1 indicates that all MR sequences (T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences) are below the minimum standard of diagnostic quality, a score of 3 means that the scan is of sufficient diagnostic quality, and a score of 5 implies that all three sequences are of optimal diagnostic quality. The purpose of this educational review is to provide a practical guide to assess the quality of prostate MRI using PI-QUAL and to familiarise the radiologist and all those involved in prostate MRI with this scoring system. A variety of images are also presented to demonstrate the difference between suboptimal and good prostate MR scans.

scholarly journals Multiparametric prostate MRI quality assessment using a semi-automated PI-QUAL software program

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Giganti ◽  
Sydney Lindner ◽  
Jonathan W. Piper ◽  
Veeru Kasivisvanathan ◽  
Mark Emberton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Image Quality ◽  
Visual Assessment ◽  
Visual Evaluation ◽  
Prostate Mri ◽  
Technical Parameters ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Technical Requirements ◽  
Software Program ◽  
Good Quality Image

AbstractThe technical requirements for the acquisition of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate have been clearly outlined in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines, but there is still huge variability in image quality among centres across the world. It has been difficult to quantify what constitutes a good-quality image, and a first attempt to address this matter has been the publication of the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score and its dedicated scoring sheet. This score includes the assessment of technical parameters that can be obtained from the DICOM files along with a visual evaluation of certain features on prostate MRI (e.g., anatomical structures). We retrospectively analysed the image quality of 10 scans from different vendors and magnets using a semiautomated dedicated PI-QUAL software program and compared the time needed for assessing image quality using two methods (semiautomated assessment versus manual filling of the scoring sheet). This semiautomated software is able to assess the technical parameters automatically, but the visual assessment is still performed by the radiologist. There was a significant reduction in the reporting time of prostate mpMRI quality according to PI-QUAL using the dedicated software program compared to manual filling (5′54″ versus 7′59″; p = 0.005). A semiautomated PI-QUAL software program allows the radiologist to assess the technical details related to the image quality of prostate mpMRI in a quick and reliable manner, allowing clinicians to have more confidence that the quality of mpMRI of the prostate is sufficient to determine patient care.

Simplified Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System for Biparametric Prostate MRI: A Proposal

2018 ◽  
Vol 211 (2) ◽  
pp. 379-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Scialpi ◽  
Maria Cristina Aisa ◽  
Alfredo D'Andrea ◽  
Eugenio Martorana
Keyword(s):  
Data System ◽  
Prostate Mri ◽  
Prostate Imaging

scholarly journals Race and prostate imaging: implications for targeted biopsy and image-based prostate cancer interventions

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. e000010
Author(s):  
Michael D Gross ◽  
Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh ◽  
Jonathan E Shoag ◽  
Elizabeth Mauer ◽  
Samprit Banerjee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Asian Americans ◽  
Asian American ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Prostate Mri ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Asian American Men

PurposeFor men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA), there is a strong evidence for prostate MRI to assess the risk of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) and guide targeted-biopsy interventions. Prostate MRI is assessed using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), which is scored from 1 to 5. Equivocal or suspicious findings (PI-RADS 3–5) are recommended for subsequent targeted biopsy, for which the risk of infection and sepsis is increasing. However, PI-RADS was developed primarily in men of European descent. We sought to elucidate PI-RADS and MRI-targeted biopsy outcomes in Asian men, a rapidly growing population in the USA, Europe, Australia and internationally.Materials and methodsA prospective cohort of 544 men with elevated PSA without a diagnosis of prostate cancer who underwent MRI-targeted biopsy at our institution from January 2012 to December 2018 was analyzed. We categorized the cohort by self-designated race then used a validated algorithm which uses surname lists to identify a total of 78 (14%) Asian-Americans. The primary outcome was the likelihood of diagnosing CSPC (Gleason grade group >1) in Asian-Americans versus non-Asian-Americans. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association of demographic and other characteristics with CSPC.ResultsOverall, MRI-targeted biopsy identified CSPC in 17% of Asian-American men versus 39% of non-Asian-American men (p<0.001). Notably for PI-RADS 3, only 6% of Asian-Americans versus 15% of others were diagnosed with CSPC. In adjusted analyses, Asian-American men were less likely to be diagnosed on MRI-targeted biopsy with CSPC (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.65, p=0.002) and indolent prostate cancer (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.91, p=0.030) than other races. Regardless of race those who were biopsy naïve were more likely (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.49, p<0.001) to be diagnosed with CSPC.ConclusionWe found that PI-RADS underperforms in Asian-American men. For instance, only 2 of 35 (6%) Asian-American men with PI-RADS 3 were diagnosed with CSPC on MRI targeted biopsy. This has significant implications for overuse of diagnostic and image-guided interventional approaches in Asian-Americans, given the increasing risk of infectious complications from biopsy. Additional validation studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Comparison of Interreader Reproducibility of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System and Likert Scales for Evaluation of Multiparametric Prostate MRI

2013 ◽  
Vol 201 (4) ◽  
pp. W612-W618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew B. Rosenkrantz ◽  
Ruth P. Lim ◽  
Mershad Haghighi ◽  
Molly B. Somberg ◽  
James S. Babb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data System ◽  
Likert Scales ◽  
Prostate Mri ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Multiparametric Prostate Mri
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document