Impact of enema prep on the false-negative rate of a PI-RADS 1 MRI of the prostate for clinically significant prostate cancer

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.

Patient preparation for prostate MRI: A scoping review

PURPOSE

To perform a scoping review of the literature evaluating patient preparation for prostate MRI.

METHODS

We conducted a search of English language literature, between 1989 and 2022 using MEDLINE and EMBASE for key terms: diet, enema, gel, catheter and anti-spasmodic agents linked to prostate MRI. Studies were reviewed for: level of evidence (LOE), study design and key results. Knowledge gaps were identified.

RESULTS

Three studies evaluated dietary modification in 655 patients. LOE was 3. All studies showed improved DWI and T2W image quality (IQ) and reduced DWI artifact. Nine studies evaluated enema use in 1551 patients. Mean LOE was 2.8 (range 2-3). Six studies reported IQ; DWI and T2W IQ were significantly improved with enema in 5/6 and 4/6 studies respectively. Only one study evaluated DWI/T2W lesion visibility which was improved with enema. One study evaluated impact of enema on eventual prostate cancer diagnosis, showing no benefit in false negative reduction. One study (LOE = 2, 150 patients) evaluated rectal gel; however, in combination with enema showing improved DWI and T2W IQ, lesion visibility and PI-QUAL compared to no preparation. Two studies evaluated use of rectal catheter in 396 patients. LOE was 3. One study showed improved DWI and T2W IQ and artifact compared to no preparation; however, the other showed inferior results comparing rectal catheter to enema. Six studies evaluated anti-spasmodic agent use in 888 patients. Mean LOE was 2.8 (range 2-3). Benefit of anti-spasmodic agent use on image quality and artifact on DWI and T2W are conflicting with no clear benefit.

CONCLUSION

Data evaluating patient preparation for prostate MRI is limited by level of evidence, study design and conflicting results. The majority of published studies do not evaluate impact of patient preparation on eventual prostate cancer diagnosis.