Influence of Enema and Dietary Restrictions on Prostate MR Image Quality: A Multireader Study

Micro-enema immediately prior to prostate MRI: effects on rectal gas, image quality and PI-QUAL score

PURPOSE

Our aim was to determine whether the administration of a micro-enema immediately prior to prostate MRI is associated with a reduction in rectal gas, gas related artifacts and an improvement in image quality and PI-QUAL score.

METHOD

This retrospective analysis enrolled 171 patients who underwent multiparametric 3T prostate MRI at our institution between January 2021 and September 2022. 86 patients received a micro-enema, and a further 85 patients did not. Two fellowship trained abdominal radiologists were blinded and independently reviewed each prostate MRI, recording scores on a dedicated scoring sheet. The quality of T2 weighted (T2W), diffusion weighted (DWI), and dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) images were assessed according to standardised scales supported in the literature. In addition, gas related artifacts and rectal gas level were examined. An independent-samples Mann-Whitney U and t-test were performed, comparing both the median and mean score between micro-enema and no micro-enema groups for each reader. Spearman's correlation was used to determine the strength of relationship between variables. A quadratic weighted Cohen's Kappa and percent agreement were used to assess inter-observer agreement.

RESULTS

Image quality was improved in those who received the micro-enema compared to those who did not according to the visual grading scale on the DWI sequence for both readers (reader 1: median 4 vs. 4, p < 0.001, mean 4.27 vs. 3.92, p < 0.001; reader 2: median 5 vs. 4, p < 0.001, mean 4.74 vs. 4.14, p < 0.001). PI-QUAL score was significantly improved in the micro-enema group for reader 2 only (reader 1: median 4 vs. 4, p = 0.25, mean 3.99 vs. 4.08, p = 0.21; reader 2: median 5 vs. 5, p = 0.01, mean 4.95 vs. 4.78, p = 0.01). Visual grading score for both the T2W and DCE images was not significantly different. Rectal gas level was lower in patients who received the micro-enema for both readers (reader 1: median 2 vs. 4, p < 0.001, mean 2.12 vs. 3.60, p < 0.001; reader 2: median 1 vs. 2, p < 0.001, mean 1.37 vs. 2.48, p < 0.001), correlating with a lower score for gas-related artifacts (reader 1: median 1 vs. 2, p < 0.001, mean 1.50 vs. 1.92, p < 0.001; reader 2: median 1 vs. 1, p < 0.001, mean 1.16 vs. 1.71, p < 0.001) in this group. Correlation between rectal gas level and gas-related artifacts on DWI regardless of whether a micro-enema was given was strong (rs = 0.71, p < 0.001). Correlation was moderate to strong between rectal gas level and image quality on DWI (rs = -0.63, p < 0.001). There was only 1 (1.2%) borderline diagnostic or non-diagnostic DWI sequence in those who received the micro-enema, compared to 9 (10.6%) in those who did not (p = 0.009). Interobserver agreement was moderate for image quality on DWI, gas related artifacts and rectal gas level (weighted kappa values of 0.52, 0.49 and 0.53 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of a micro-enema immediately prior to prostate MRI is associated with a significant improvement in image quality on the DWI sequence compared to no bowel preparation. This is mediated through a reduction in rectal gas and gas related artifacts. Improvements in PI-QUAL score was mixed between readers.

Perspectives on technology: Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) interobserver variability

OBJECTIVES

To explore the topic of Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) interobserver variability, including a discussion of major sources, mitigation approaches, and future directions.

METHODS

A narrative review of PI-RADS interobserver variability.

RESULTS

PI-RADS was developed in 2012 to set technical standards for prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), reduce interobserver variability at interpretation, and improve diagnostic accuracy in the MRI-directed diagnostic pathway for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. While PI-RADS has been validated in selected research cohorts with prostate cancer imaging experts, subsequent prospective studies in routine clinical practice demonstrate wide variability in diagnostic performance. Radiologist and biopsy operator experience are the most important contributing drivers of high-quality care among multiple interrelated factors including variability in MRI hardware and technique, image quality, and population and patient-specific factors such as prostate cancer disease prevalence. Iterative improvements in PI-RADS have helped flatten the curve for novice readers and reduce variability. Innovations in image quality reporting, administrative and organisational workflows, and artificial intelligence hold promise in improving variability even further.

CONCLUSION

Continued research into PI-RADS is needed to facilitate benchmark creation, reader certification, and independent accreditation, which are systems-level interventions needed to uphold and maintain high-quality prostate MRI across entire populations.

Improving Prostate MR Image Quality in Practice-Initial Results From the ACR Prostate MR Image Quality Improvement Collaborative

OBJECTIVE

Variability in prostate MRI quality is an increasingly recognized problem that negatively affects patient care. This report aims to describe the results and key learnings of the first cohort of the ACR Learning Network Prostate MR Image Quality Improvement Collaborative.

METHODS

Teams from five organizations in the United States were trained on a structured improvement method. After reaching a consensus on image quality and auditing their images using the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) system, teams conducted a current state analysis to identify barriers to obtaining high-quality images. Through plan-do-study-act cycles involving frontline staff, each site designed and tested interventions targeting image quality key drivers. The percentage of examinations meeting quality criteria (ie, PI-QUAL score ≥4) was plotted on a run chart, and project progress was reviewed in weekly meetings. At the collaborative level, the goal was to increase the percentage of examinations with PI-QUAL ≥4 to at least 85%.

RESULTS

Across 2,380 examinations audited, the mean weekly rates of prostate MR examinations meeting image quality criteria increased from 67% (range: 60%-74%) at baseline to 87% (range: 80%-97%) upon program completion. The most commonly employed interventions were MR protocol adjustments, development and implementation of patient preparation instructions, personnel training, and development of an auditing process mechanism.

CONCLUSION

A learning network model, in which organizations share knowledge and work together toward a common goal, can improve prostate MR image quality at multiple sites simultaneously. The inaugural cohort's key learnings provide a road map for improvement on a broader scale.

Strategies for improving image quality in prostate MRI

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) stands as the cornerstone in diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa), offering superior detection capabilities while minimizing unnecessary biopsies. Despite its critical role, global disparities in MRI diagnostic performance persist, stemming from variations in image quality and radiologist expertise. This manuscript reviews the challenges and strategies for enhancing image quality in prostate MRI, spanning patient preparation, MRI unit optimization, and radiology team engagement. Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) processes are pivotal, emphasizing standardized protocols, meticulous patient evaluation, MRI unit workflow, and radiology team performance. Additionally, artificial intelligence (AI) advancements offer promising avenues for improving image quality and reducing acquisition times. The Prostate-Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) scoring system emerges as a valuable tool for assessing MRI image quality. A comprehensive approach addressing technical, procedural, and interpretative aspects is essential to ensure consistent and reliable prostate MRI outcomes.

Picture Perfect: The Status of Image Quality in Prostate MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard imaging modality for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Image quality is a fundamental prerequisite for the ability to detect clinically significant disease. In this critical review, we separate the issue of image quality into quality improvement and quality assessment. Beginning with the evolution of technical recommendations for scan acquisition, we investigate the role of patient preparation, scanner factors, and more advanced sequences, including those featuring Artificial Intelligence (AI), in determining image quality. As means of quality appraisal, the published literature on scoring systems (including the Prostate Imaging Quality score), is evaluated. Finally, the application of AI and teaching courses as ways to facilitate quality assessment are discussed, encouraging the implementation of future image quality initiatives along the PCa diagnostic and monitoring pathway. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Machine learning based prediction of image quality in prostate MRI using rapid localizer images

Purpose

Diagnostic performance of prostate MRI depends on high-quality imaging. Prostate MRI quality is inversely proportional to the amount of rectal gas and distention. Early detection of poor-quality MRI may enable intervention to remove gas or exam rescheduling, saving time. We developed a machine learning based quality prediction of yet-to-be acquired MRI images solely based on MRI rapid localizer sequence, which can be acquired in a few seconds.

Approach

The dataset consists of 213 (147 for training and 64 for testing) prostate sagittal T2-weighted (T2W) MRI localizer images and rectal content, manually labeled by an expert radiologist. Each MRI localizer contains seven two-dimensional (2D) slices of the patient, accompanied by manual segmentations of rectum for each slice. Cascaded and end-to-end deep learning models were used to predict the quality of yet-to-be T2W, DWI, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) MRI images. Predictions were compared to quality scores determined by the experts using area under the receiver operator characteristic curve and intra-class correlation coefficient.

Results

In the test set of 64 patients, optimal versus suboptimal exams occurred in 95.3% (61/64) versus 4.7% (3/64) for T2W, 90.6% (58/64) versus 9.4% (6/64) for DWI, and 89.1% (57/64) versus 10.9% (7/64) for ADC. The best performing segmentation model was 2D U-Net with ResNet-34 encoder and ImageNet weights. The best performing classifier was the radiomics based classifier.

Conclusions

A radiomics based classifier applied to localizer images achieves accurate diagnosis of subsequent image quality for T2W, DWI, and ADC prostate MRI sequences.

Update on Optimization of Prostate MR Imaging Technique and Image Quality

Prostate MR imaging quality has improved dramatically over recent times, driven by advances in hardware, software, and improved functional imaging techniques. MRI now plays a key role in prostate cancer diagnostic work-up, but outcomes of the MRI-directed pathway are heavily dependent on image quality and optimization. MR sequences can be affected by patient-related degradations relating to motion and susceptibility artifacts which may enable only partial mitigation. In this Review, we explore issues relating to prostate MRI acquisition and interpretation, mitigation strategies at a patient and scanner level, PI-QUAL reporting, and future directions in image quality, including artificial intelligence solutions.

Optimization of non-endorectal prostate MR image quality using PI-QUAL: A multidisciplinary team approach

PURPOSE

To evaluate the utility of the PI-QUAL score in assessing protocol changes aimed to improve image quality from a non-endorectal coil prostate MR imaging protocol during a 9-month quality improvement (QI) project and to quantify the inter-reader agreement of PI-QUAL scores between radiologists, technologists, and physicists.

METHODS

This retrospective study audited 1,012 multiparametric prostate MRI examinations as part of a national QI project according to the PI-QUAL standard. PI-QUAL scores were used to inform MR protocol changes. Following the project, 4 radiologists, 2 technologists, and 1 medical physicist collectively audited an additional set of 150 examinations to identify statistical improvements in image quality using the two-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test. The improvements due to individual protocol changes were assessed among subsets of the 1,012 examinations which compared examinations occurring before and after the isolated protocol change. Inter-reader variability was assessed using the percent majority agreement and the average standard deviation of PI-QUAL scores between evaluators.

RESULTS

During this QI project, PI-QUAL scores improved from 3.67 ± 0.75 to 4.16 ± 0.59 (p < 0.01) after implementing a series of protocol changes. Among a subset of 451 cases, we found that adopting R/L rather than A/P phase encoding reduced distortion in diffusion-weighted imaging (DW) from 21.6% (41/190 A/P phase encoded cases) to 11.5% (30/261 R/L phase encoded cases) (p < 0.01). Similarly, in the same 451 cases, adopting R/L phase encoding in T2WI reduced breathing motion artifacts from 34.6% (94/272 A/P phase encoding cases) to 12.8% (23/179 R/L phase encoding cases) (p < 0.01). DWI wraparound artifact was mitigated by employing a full-pelvis shim and enabling the abdomen shim option. The occurrence of low signal-to-noise ratio was reduced from 19.4% (19/98 cases without a weight-based threshold) to 6.3% (10/160) by instituting a weight-based threshold for using an endorectal coil (p < 0.01). The percent majority agreement was similar between radiologists, technologists and physicists, and all evaluators combined (72%, 77%, and 67%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

PI-QUAL can evaluate image quality changes resulting from protocol optimizations at both the exam- and series-levels. With training, radiologists, technologists, and physicists can perform PI-QUAL scoring with similar performance. Broadening the scope of the quality improvement team can result in meaningful and lasting change.

The role of AI in prostate MRI quality and interpretation: Opportunities and challenges

Prostate MRI plays an important role in imaging the prostate gland and surrounding tissues, particularly in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. With the widespread adoption of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in recent years, the concerns surrounding the variability of imaging quality have garnered increased attention. Several factors contribute to the inconsistency of image quality, such as acquisition parameters, scanner differences and interobserver variabilities. While efforts have been made to standardize image acquisition and interpretation via the development of systems, such as PI-RADS and PI-QUAL, the scoring systems still depend on the subjective experience and acumen of humans. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly used in many applications, including medical imaging, due to its ability to automate tasks and lower human error rates. These advantages have the potential to standardize the tasks of image interpretation and quality control of prostate MRI. Despite its potential, thorough validation is required before the implementation of AI in clinical practice. In this article, we explore the opportunities and challenges of AI, with a focus on the interpretation and quality of prostate MRI.

Prostate Cancer and Its Mimics-A Pictorial Review

BACKGROUND

Multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) is gaining wider recommendations for diagnosing and following up on prostate cancer. However, despite the high accuracy of mpMRI, false positive and false negative results are reported. Some of these may be related to normal anatomic structures, benign lesions that may mimic cancer, or poor-quality images that hamper interpretation. The aim of this review is to discuss common potential pitfalls in the interpretation of mpMRI.

METHODS

mpMRI of the prostates was performed on 3T MRI scanners (Philips Achieva or Siemens Magnetom Vida) according to European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines and technical requirements.

RESULTS

This pictorial review discusses normal anatomical structures such as the anterior fibromuscular stroma, periprostatic venous plexus, central zone, and benign conditions such as benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), post-biopsy hemorrhage, prostatitis, and abscess that may imitate prostate cancer, as well as the appearance of prostate cancer occurring in these locations. Furthermore, suggestions on how to avoid these pitfalls are provided, and the impact of image quality is also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

In an era of accelerating prostate mpMRI and high demand for high-quality interpretation of the scans, radiologists should be aware of these potential pitfalls to improve their diagnostic accuracy.

Prostate MRI and image Quality: It is time to take stock

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) plays a vital role in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. With the increase in use of mpMRI, obtaining the best possible quality images has become a priority. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) was introduced to standardize and optimize patient preparation, scanning techniques, and interpretation. However, the quality of the MRI sequences depends not only on the hardware/software and scanning parameters, but also on patient-related factors. Common patient-related factors include bowel peristalsis, rectal distension, and patient motion. There is currently no consensus regarding the best approaches to address these issues and improve the quality of mpMRI. New evidence has been accrued since the release of PI-RADS, and this review aims to explore the key strategies which aim to improve prostate MRI quality, such as imaging techniques, patient preparation methods, the new Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) criteria, and artificial intelligence on prostate MRI quality.

Combined MRI and PSA Strategy Improves Biopsy Decisions Compared with PSA Only: Longitudinal Observations of a Cohort of Patients with a PSA Level Less Than 20 ng/mL

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic performances of prostate specific antigen (PSA) and PSA with prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to predict prostate cancer in patients with PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients suspected of prostate cancer with a PSA test and prebiopsy MRI were included (n = 881). Prostate biopsy results or follow-up clinical data for 2 years were used to determine the presence of prostate cancer. The diagnostic performance of PSA, MRI, and PSA with MRI (referred to as the protocol) was evaluated. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the MRI were calculated in subgroups of patients with specific ranges of PSA level.

RESULTS

Prostate cancer and CSC were diagnosed in 220 and 162 patients, respectively. Adding MRI to PSA could greatly improve specificity and PPV (0.833 and 0.567) for detecting CSC, compared to PSA ≥ 4 ng/mL alone (0.248 and 0.0219). Even though the sensitivity of the protocol (0.679) was lower than PSA (0.938), the NPV of the protocol was comparable to PSA (0.929 vs. 0.924). The protocol consistently showed the superior PPV and NVP to PSA only in not only patients within the gray zone of PSA, but also in patients with higher PSA.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this longitudinal observational study confirmed that adding prebiopsy MRI to PSA was consistently beneficial in patients with PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL for avoiding unnecessary biopsy despite decrease in the sensitivity.

Quality checkpoints in the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is now recommended as the initial diagnostic test for men presenting with suspected prostate cancer, with a negative MRI enabling safe avoidance of biopsy and a positive result enabling MRI-directed sampling of lesions. The diagnostic pathway consists of several steps, from initial patient presentation and preparation to performing and interpreting MRI, communicating the imaging findings, outlining the prostate and intra-prostatic target lesions, performing the biopsy and assessing the cores. Each component of this pathway requires experienced clinicians, optimized equipment, good inter-disciplinary communication between specialists, and standardized workflows in order to achieve the expected outcomes. Assessment of quality and mitigation measures are essential for the success of the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Quality assurance processes including Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System, template biopsy, and pathology guidelines help to minimize variation and ensure optimization of the diagnostic pathway. Quality control systems including the Prostate Imaging Quality scoring system, patient-level outcomes (such as Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System MRI score assignment and cancer detection rates), multidisciplinary meeting review and audits might also be used to provide consistency of outcomes and ensure that all the benefits of the MRI-directed pathway are achieved.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Prostate MRI White Paper

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy and the third most common cause of death in Canadian men. In light of evolving diagnostic pathways for prostate cancer and the increased use of MRI, which now includes its use in men prior to biopsy, the Canadian Association of Radiologists established a Prostate MRI Working Group to produce a white paper to provide recommendations on establishing and maintaining a Prostate MRI Programme in the context of the Canadian healthcare system. The recommendations, which are based on available scientific evidence and/or expert consensus, are intended to maintain quality in image acquisition, interpretation, reporting and targeted biopsy to ensure optimal patient care. The paper covers technique, reporting, quality assurance and targeted biopsy considerations and includes appendices detailing suggested reporting templates, quality assessment tools and sample image acquisition protocols relevant to the Canadian healthcare context.

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

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reproducibility and impact of prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) scores in a clinical cohort undergoing prostate multiparametric MRI.

METHODS

PI-QUAL scores were independently recorded by three radiologists (two senior, one junior). Readers also recorded whether MRI was sufficient to rule-in/out cancer and if repeat imaging was required. Inter-reader agreement was assessed using Cohen's κ. PI-QUAL scores were further correlated to PI-RADS score, number of biopsy procedures, and need for repeat imaging.

RESULTS

Image quality was sufficient (≥PI-QUAL-3) in 237/247 (96%) and optimal (≥PI-QUAL-4) in 206/247 (83%) of males undergoing 3T-MRI. Overall PI-QUAL scores showed moderate inter-reader agreement for senior (K = 0.51) and junior-senior readers (K = 0.47), with DCE showing highest agreement (K = 0.47). With PI-QUAL-5 studies, the negative MRI calls increased from 50 to 87% and indeterminate PI-RADS-3 rates decreased from 31.8. to 10.4% compared to lower quality PI-QUAL-3 studies. More patients with PI-QUAL scores 1-3 underwent biopsy for negative (47%) and indeterminate probability (100%) MRIs compared to PI-QUAL score 4-5 (30 and 75%, respectively). Ability to rule-in cancer increased with PI-QUAL score, from 50% at PI-QUAL 1-2 to 90% for PI-QUAL 4-5, with a similarly, but greater effect for ruling-out cancer and at a lower threshold, from 0% for scans of PI-QUAL 1-2 to 67.1% for PI-QUAL 4 and 100% for PI-QUAL-5.

CONCLUSION

Higher PI-QUAL scores for image quality are associated with decreased uncertainty in MRI decision-making and improved efficiency of diagnostic pathway delivery.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This study demonstrates moderate inter-reader agreement for PI-QUAL scoring and validates the score in a clinical setting, showing correlation of image quality to certainty of decision making and clinical outcomes of repeat imaging and biopsy of low-to-intermediate risk cases.

The impact and collateral damage of COVID-19 on prostate MRI and guided biopsy operations: Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-Focused Panel survey analysis

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly affected health care systems throughout the world. A Qualtrics survey was targeted for radiologists around the world to study its effect on the operations of prostate MRI studies and biopsies. Descriptive statistics were reported. A total of 60 complete responses from five continents were included in the analysis. 70% of the responses were from academic institutions. Among all participants, the median (range) number of prostate MRI was 20 (0, 135) per week before the COVID-19 pandemic versus 10 (0, 30) during the lockdown period; the median (range) number of prostate biopsies was 4.5 (0, 60) per week before the COVID-19 versus 0 (0, 12) during the lockdown period. Among the 30% who used bowel preparation for their patients prior to MRI routinely, 11% stopped the bowel preparation due to the pandemic. 47% reported that their radiology departments faced staff disruptions, while 68% reported changes in clinic schedules in other clinical departments, particularly urology, genitourinary medical oncology, and radiation oncology. Finally, COVID-19 pandemic was found to disrupt not only the clinical prostate MRI operations but also impacted prostate MRI/biopsy research in up to 50% of institutions. The impact of this collateral damage in delaying diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer is yet to be explored.

Comparison of 5 Rectal Preparation Strategies for Prostate MRI and Impact on Image Quality

PURPOSE

To compare 5 different rectal preparation strategies for prostate MRI.

METHODS

This 5-arm quality-assurance study evaluated 56 patients per arm (280 patients) including: no preparation, clear-fluids diet (CFD) beginning at 00:00 hours on the day of MRI, Fleet®-enema, enema + CFD, enema + CFD + IV-antispasmodic agent. The study was powered to 0.80 with alpha-error of 0.05. Three blinded radiologists independently evaluated T2-Weighted (T2W) and Diffusion Weighed Imaging (DWI) for: rectal diameter (maximal AP diameter), rectal content (stool, fluid, gas), rectal motion, T2W/DWI image quality, T2W image sharpness and DWI susceptibility artifact using 5-point Likert scales. Overall comparisons were performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis, with pair-wise comparisons using paired t-tests and Wilcoxon sign-rank tests.

RESULTS

Rectal diameter and amount of gas were lower in enema compared to non-enema groups (p < 0.001), with smallest diameter and least gas in the enema + CFD + IV-antispasmodic group (p = 0.022-<0.001). T2W image quality and sharpness were highest in the enema + CFD groups (p < 0.001) with no difference comparing enema + CFD with/without IV-antispasmodic (p = 0.064, 0.084). Motion artifact was least in enema + CFD + IV-antispasmodic group compared to all other groups (p < 0.001), followed by the enema + CFD group (p = 0.008-<0.001). DWI image quality was highest (p < 0.001) and DWI susceptibility artifact lowest (p < 0.001) in the enema + CFD groups (p < 0.001) and did not differ comparing enema + CFD with/without anti-spasmodic (p = 0.058-0.202).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of enema + clear-fluids diet before prostate MRI yields the highest T2W and DWI image quality with the least DWI artifact. IV-antispasmodic use reduces motion on T2W but does not improve image quality on T2W or DWI, or lessen DWI artifact compared to enema + clear-fluids diet.

Value of bowel preparation techniques for prostate MRI: a preliminary study

Background

Bowel preparation before multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate is performed widely, despite contradictory or no evidence for efficacy.

Purpose

To investigate the value of hyoscine N-butylbromide (HBB), microenema (ME) and ‘dietary restrictions’ (DR) for artifact reduction and image quality (IQ) in mpMRI of the prostate.

Study type

Retrospective.

Population

Between 10/2018 and 02/2020 treatment-naïve men (median age, 64.9; range 39.8–87.3) who underwent mpMRI of the prostate were included. The total patient sample comprised of n = 180 patients, who received either HBB, ME, were instructed to adhere to DR, or received a combination of those measures prior to the MR scan.

Field strength/sequence

T2-weighted imaging (T2w), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) scanned on two 3T systems.

Assessment

A radiologist specialized in urogenital imaging (R1) and a senior radiology resident (R2) visually assessed IQ parameters on transversal T2w, DWI and ADC maps on a 5-point Likert-like scale.

Statistical tests

Group comparison between IQ parameters was performed on reader level using Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests. Binary univariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess independent predictors of IQ. Interrater agreement was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC).

Results

‘DWI geometric distortion’ was significantly more pronounced in the HBB+/ME−/DR− (R1, 3.6 and R2, 4.0) as compared to the HBB−/ME+/DR− (R1, 4.2 and R2, 4.6) and HBB+/ME+/DR− (R1, 4.3 and R2, 4.7) cohort, respectively. Parameters ‘DWI IQ’ and ‘Whole MRI IQ’ were rated similarly by both readers. ME was a significant independent predictor of ‘good IQ’ for the whole MRI for R1 [b = 1.09, OR 2.98 (95% CI 1.29, 6.87)] and R2 [b = 1.01, OR 2.73 (95% CI 1.24, 6.04)], respectively.

Data conclusion

ME seems to significantly improve image quality of DWI and the whole mpMRI image set of the prostate. HBB and DR did not have any benefit.

Prostate MRI quality: a critical review of the last 5 years and the role of the PI-QUAL score

There is increasing interest in the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the prostate cancer pathway. The European Association of Urology (EAU) and the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) now advise mpMRI prior to biopsy, and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) recommendations set out the minimal technical requirements for the acquisition of mpMRI of the prostate.The widespread and swift adoption of this technique has led to variability in image quality. Suboptimal image acquisition reduces the sensitivity and specificity of mpMRI for the detection and staging of clinically significant prostate cancer.This critical review outlines the studies aimed at improving prostate MR quality that have been published over the last 5 years. These span from the use of specific MR sequences, magnets and coils to patient preparation. The rates of adherence of prostate mpMRI to technical standards in different cohorts across the world are also discussed.Finally, we discuss the first standardised scoring system (i.e., Prostate Imaging Quality, PI-QUAL) that has been created to evaluate image quality, although further iterations of this score are expected in the future.

Utility of Quantitative T2-Mapping Compared to Conventional and Advanced Diffusion Weighted Imaging Techniques for Multiparametric Prostate MRI in Men with Hip Prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) is fundamental for prostate cancer (PCa) detection with MRI; however, limited by susceptibility artifact from hip prosthesis.

PURPOSE

To evaluate image quality and ability to detect PCa with quantitative T2-mapping and DWI in men with hip prosthesis undergoing prostate MRI.

STUDY TYPE

Prospective, cross-sectional study.

POPULATION

Thirty consecutive men with hip replacement (18 unilateral, 12 bilateral) undergoing prostate MRI from 2019 to 2021.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

3-T; multiparametric MRI (T2W, DCE-MRI, echo-planar [EPI]-DWI), T2-mapping (Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill), FOCUS-EPI-DWI, PROPELLER-DWI.

ASSESSMENT

Five blinded radiologists independently evaluated MRI image quality using a 5-point Likert scale. PI-RADS v2.1 scores were applied in four interpretation strategies: 1) T2W-FSE+DCE-MRI+EPI-DWI, 2) T2W-FSE+DCE-MRI+EPI-DWI+FOCUS-EPI-DWI, 3) T2W-FSE+DCE-MRI+EPI-DWI+PROPELLER-DWI, 4) T2W-FSE+DCE-MRI+EPI-DWI+T2-maps. Five-point confidence scores were recorded.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis with pair-wise comparisons by Wilcoxon sign-rank, and paired t-tests, P < 0.05 was considered significant. Cohen's Kappa (k) for PI-RADSv2.1 scoring and proportion of correctly classified lesions tabulated for pathology-confirmed cases with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

For all radiologists, T2-map image quality was significantly higher than EPI-DWI, FOCUS-EPI-DWI, and PROPELLER-DWI and similar (P = 0.146-0.706) or significantly better (for two readers) than T2W-FSE and DCE-MRI. PI-RADS v2.1 agreement improved comparing strategy A (k = 0.46) to strategy B (k = 0.58) to strategy C (k = 0.58) and was highest with strategy D which included T2-maps (k = 1.00). Radiologists' confidence was significantly highest with strategy D. Strategies B and C had similar confidence (P = 0.051-0.063) both significantly outperforming strategy A. Twelve men with 17 lesions had pathology confirmed diagnoses (13 PCa, 4 benign). Strategy D had the highest proportion of correctly classified lesions (76.5-82.4%) with overlapping 95% confidence intervals.

DATA CONCLUSION

T2-mapping may be a valuable adjunct to prostate MRI in men with hip replacement resulting in improved image quality, higher reader confidence, interobserver agreement, and accuracy in PI-RADS scoring.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.

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

Prostate 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.