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

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.

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.

MA-QC: Free online software for prostate MR quality control and PI-QUAL assessment

PURPOSE

To validate MRI Analyzer Quality Control (MA-QC), a free and open-source online software designed to facilitate MR data acquisition quality control and PI-QUAL score calculation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

MA-QC is a web-based software, designed for analysing DICOM data related to MR acquisition parameters. The software allows automatic extraction of 18 technical criteria, and manual input of 12 visual criteria, to calculate the PI-QUAL score. We collected 100 prostate MRI datasets from four MR device manufacturers to test data compatibility, automatic sequence recognition, and robustness of technical criteria extraction from DICOM data. The main issue was to determine the spatial resolution in the phase and frequency directions, due to variable encoding of the DICOM datasets.

RESULTS

Acquisition data could be extracted from all sample examinations (100%), with a median analysis speed of 15.2 ± 4.4 images per second and mean processing time of 96 [11-326] seconds per examination. MA-CQ automatically detected the optimal T2-w, DWI and DCE sequences in 71 out of 100 (71%) cases, and required manual selection of at least one sequence in 29 out of 100 (29%) cases to get the best parameters. Display of technical criteria for the 3 sequences was instantaneous. PI-QUAL score could be calculated in all cases.

CONCLUSION

This software brings substantial help in the quality assessment of prostate MRI examinations, by providing fast extraction of series data and the 18 technical parameters of PI-QUAL. PI-QUAL scoring can be performed in less than two minutes, helping to focus on the visual criteria, allowing use of this software in the clinical workflow in the aim of improving overall image quality in prostate MR imaging.

Global Variation in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Quality of the Prostate

Background High variability in prostate MRI quality might reduce accuracy in prostate cancer detection. Purpose To prospectively evaluate the quality of MRI scanners taking part in the quality control phase of the global PRIME (Prostate Imaging Using MRI ± Contrast Enhancement) trial using the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) standardized scoring system, give recommendations on how to improve the MRI protocols, and establish whether MRI quality could be improved by these recommendations. Materials and Methods In the prospective clinical trial (PRIME), for each scanner, centers performing prostate MRI submitted five consecutive studies and the MRI protocols (phase I). Submitted data were evaluated in consensus by two expert genitourinary radiologists using the PI-QUAL scoring system that evaluates MRI diagnostic quality using five points (1 and 2 = nondiagnostic; 3 = sufficient; 4 = adequate, 5 = optimal) between September 2021 and August 2022. Feedback was provided for scanners not achieving a PI-QUAL 5 score, and centers were invited to resubmit new imaging data using the modified protocol (phase II). Descriptive comparison of outcomes was made between the MRI scanners, feedback provided, and overall PI-QUAL scores. Results In phase I, 41 centers from 18 countries submitted a total of 355 multiparametric MRI studies from 71 scanners, with nine (13%) scanners achieving a PI-QUAL score of 3, 39 (55%) achieving a score of 4, and 23 (32%) achieving a score of 5. Of the 48 (n = 71 [68%]) scanners that received feedback to improve, the dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences were those that least adhered to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2.1, criteria (44 of 48 [92%]), followed by diffusion-weighted imaging (20 of 48 [42%]) and T2-weighted imaging (19 of 48 [40%]). In phase II, 36 centers from 17 countries resubmitted revised studies, resulting in a total of 62 (n = 64 [97%]) scanners with a final PI-QUAL score of 5. Conclusion Substantial variation in global prostate MRI acquisition parameters as a measure of quality was observed, particularly with DCE sequences. Basic evaluation and modifications to MRI protocols using PI-QUAL can lead to substantial improvements in quality. Clinical trial registration no. NCT04571840 Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Almansour and Chernyak in this issue.

Radiomics based automated quality assessment for T2W prostate MR images

PURPOSE

The guidelines for prostate cancer recommend the use of MRI in the prostate cancer pathway. Due to the variability in prostate MR image quality, the reliability of this technique in the detection of prostate cancer is highly variable in clinical practice. This leads to the need for an objective and automated assessment of image quality to ensure an adequate acquisition and hereby to improve the reliability of MRI. The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility of Blind/referenceless image spatial quality evaluator (Brisque) and radiomics in automated image quality assessment of T2-weighted (T2W) images.

METHOD

Anonymized axial T2W images from 140 patients were scored for quality using a five-point Likert scale (low, suboptimal, acceptable, good, very good quality) in consensus by two readers. Images were dichotomized into clinically acceptable (very good, good and acceptable quality images) and clinically unacceptable (low and suboptimal quality images) in order to train and verify the model. Radiomics and Brisque features were extracted from a central cuboid volume including the prostate. A reduced feature set was used to fit a Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) model to predict image quality. Two hundred times repeated 5-fold cross-validation was used to train the model and test performance by assessing the classification accuracy, the discrimination accuracy as receiver operating curve - area under curve (ROC-AUC), and by generating confusion matrices.

RESULTS

Thirty-four images were classified as clinically unacceptable and 106 were classified as clinically acceptable. The accuracy of the independent test set (mean ± standard deviation) was 85.4 ± 5.5%. The ROC-AUC was 0.856 (0.851 - 0.861) (mean; 95% confidence interval).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiomics AI can automatically detect a significant portion of T2W images of suboptimal image quality. This can help improve image quality at the time of acquisition, thus reducing repeat scans and improving diagnostic accuracy.

Taking PI-QUAL beyond the prostate: Towards a standardized radiological image quality score (RI-QUAL)

PURPOSE

To compare the interreader agreement of a novel quality score, called the Radiological Image Quality Score (RI-QUAL), to a slighly modified version of the existing Prostate Imaging Quality (mPI-QUAL) score for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate.

METHODS

A total of 43 consecutive scans were evaluated by two subspecialized radiologists who assigned scores using both the RI-QUAL and mPI-QUAL methods. The interreader agreement was analyzed using three statistical methods: concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Cohen's kappa. Time needed to arrive at a quality judgment was measured and compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.

RESULTS

The interreader agreement for RI-QUAL and mPI-QUAL scores was comparable, as evidenced by the high CCC (0.76 vs. 0.77, p = 0.93), ICC (0.86 vs. 0.87, p = 0.93), and moderate Cohen's kappa (0.61 vs. 0.64, p = 0.85) values. Moreover, RI-QUAL assessment was faster than mPI-QUAL (19 vs. 40 s, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

RI-QUAL is a new quality score that has comparable interreader agreement to the mPI-QUAL score, but with the potential to be applied to different MRI protocols and even different modalities. Like PI-QUAL, RI-QUAL may also facilitate communication about quality to referring physicians, as it provides a standardized and easily interpretable score. Further studies are warranted to validate the usefulness of RI-QUAL in larger patient cohorts and for other imaging modalities.

Deep learning for assessing image quality in bi-parametric prostate MRI: A feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Although systems such as Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) have been proposed for quality assessment, visual evaluations by human readers remain somewhat inconsistent, particularly among less-experienced readers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of deep learning (DL) for the automated assessment of image quality in bi-parametric MRI scans and compare its performance to that of less-experienced readers.

METHODS

We used bi-parametric prostate MRI scans from the PI-CAI dataset in this study. A 3-point Likert scale, consisting of poor, moderate, and excellent, was utilized for assessing image quality. Three expert readers established the ground-truth labels for the development (500) and testing sets (100). We trained a 3D DL model on the development set using probabilistic prostate masks and an ordinal loss function. Four less-experienced readers scored the testing set for performance comparison.

RESULTS

The kappa scores between the DL model and the expert consensus for T2W images and ADC maps were 0.42 and 0.61, representing moderate and good levels of agreement. The kappa scores between the less-experienced readers and the expert consensus for T2W images and ADC maps ranged from 0.39 to 0.56 (fair to moderate) and from 0.39 to 0.62 (fair to good).

CONCLUSIONS

Deep learning (DL) can offer performance comparable to that of less-experienced readers when assessing image quality in bi-parametric prostate MRI, making it a viable option for an automated quality assessment tool. We suggest that DL models trained on more representative datasets, annotated by a larger group of experts, could yield reliable image quality assessment and potentially substitute or assist visual evaluations by human readers.

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.

Bridging the experience gap in prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging using artificial intelligence: A prospective multi-reader comparison study on inter-reader agreement in PI-RADS v2.1, image quality and reporting time between novice and expert readers

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to determine the impact of using a semi-automatic commercially available AI-assisted software (Quantib® Prostate) on inter-reader agreement in PI-RADS scoring at different PI-QUAL ratings and grades of reader confidence and on reporting times among novice readers in multiparametric prostate MRI.

METHODS

A prospective observational study, with a final cohort of 200 patients undergoing mpMRI scans, was performed at our institution. An expert fellowship-trained urogenital radiologist interpreted all 200 scans based on PI-RADS v2.1. The scans were divided into four equal batches of 50 patients. Four independent readers evaluated each batch with and without the use of AI-assisted software, blinded to expert and individual reports. Dedicated training sessions were held before and after each batch. Image quality rated according to PI-QUAL and reporting times were recorded. Readers' confidence was also evaluated. A final evaluation of the first batch was conducted at the end of the study to assess for any changes in performance.

RESULTS

The overall kappa coefficient differences in PI-RADS scoring agreement without and with Quantib® were 0.673 to 0.736 for Reader 1, 0.628 to 0.483 for Reader 2, 0.603 to 0.292 for Reader 3 and 0.586 to 0.613 for Reader 4. Using PI-RADS ≥ 4 as cut-off for biopsy, the AUCs with AI ranged from 0.799 (95 % CI: 0.743, 0.856) to 0.820 (95 % CI: 0.765, 0.874). Inter-reader agreements at different PI-QUAL scores were higher with the use of Quantib, particularly for readers 1 and 4, with Kappa coefficient values showing moderate to slight agreement.

CONCLUSION

Quantib® Prostate could potentially be useful in improving inter-reader agreement among less experienced to completely novice readers if used as a supplement to PACS.

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.

A semi-automated software program to assess the impact of second reads in prostate MRI for equivocal lesions: results from a UK tertiary referral centre

PURPOSE

To investigate the utility of a prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) second read using a semi-automated software program in the one-stop clinic, where patients undergo multiparametric MRI, review and biopsy planning in one visit. We looked at concordance between readers for patients with equivocal scans and the possibility for biopsy deferral in this group.

METHODS

We present data from 664 consecutive patients. Scans were reported by seven different expert genitourinary radiologists using dedicated software (MIM®) and a Likert scale. All scans were rescored by another expert genitourinary radiologist using a customised workflow for second reads that includes annotated biopsy contours for accurate visual targeting. The number of scans in which a biopsy could have been deferred using biopsy results and prostate specific antigen density was assessed. Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4 was considered clinically significant disease. Concordance between first and second reads for equivocal scans (Likert 3) was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 209/664 (31%) patients scored Likert 3 on first read, 128 of which (61%) were concordant after second read. 103/209 (49%) of patients with Likert 3 scans were biopsied, with clinically significant disease in 31 (30%) cases. Considering Likert 3 scans that were both downgraded and biopsied using the workflow-generated biopsy contours, 25/103 (24%) biopsies could have been deferred.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing a semi-automated workflow for accurate lesion contouring and targeting biopsies is helpful during the one-stop clinic. We observed a reduction of indeterminate scans after second reading and almost a quarter of biopsies could have been deferred, reducing the potential biopsy-related side effects.

Tasks for artificial intelligence in prostate MRI

The advent of precision medicine, increasing clinical needs, and imaging availability among many other factors in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway has engendered the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI). AI carries a vast number of potential applications in every step of the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway from classifying/improving prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance image quality, prostate segmentation, anatomically segmenting cancer suspicious foci, detecting and differentiating clinically insignificant cancers from clinically significant cancers on a voxel-level, and classifying entire lesions into Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System categories/Gleason scores. Multiple studies in all these areas have shown many promising results approximating accuracies of radiologists. Despite this flourishing research, more prospective multicenter studies are needed to uncover the full impact and utility of AI on improving radiologist performance and clinical management of prostate cancer. In this narrative review, we aim to introduce emerging medical imaging AI paper quality metrics such as the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) and Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI), dive into some of the top AI models for segmentation, detection, and classification.

Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron-Emission Tomography Imaging in Primary Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Multiparametric magnetic-resonance imaging (mpMRI) has proven utility in diagnosing primary prostate cancer. However, the diagnostic potential of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron-emission tomography (PSMA PET) has yet to be established. This study aims to systematically review the current literature comparing the diagnostic performance of mpMRI and PSMA PET imaging to diagnose primary prostate cancer. A systematic literature search was performed up to December 2021. Quality analyses were conducted using the QUADAS-2 tool. The reference standard was whole-mount prostatectomy or prostate biopsy. Statistical analysis involved the pooling of the reported diagnostic performances of each modality, and differences in per-patient and per-lesion analysis were compared using a Fisher’s exact test. Ten articles were included in the meta-analysis. At a per-patient level, the pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83−0.91) vs. 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90−0.96, p < 0.01); 0.47 (95% CI: 0.23−0.71) vs. 0.54 (95% CI: 0.23−0.84, p > 0.05); and 0.84 vs. 0.91, respectively. At a per-lesion level, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC value for mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT were lower, at 0.63 (95% CI: 0.52−0.74) vs. 0.79 (95% CI: 0.62−0.92, p < 0.001); 0.88 (95% CI: 0.81−0.95) vs. 0.71 (95% CI: 0.47−0.90, p < 0.05); and 0.83 vs. 0.84, respectively. High heterogeneity was observed between studies. PSMA PET/CT may better confirm the presence of prostate cancer than mpMRI. However, both modalities appear comparable in determining the localisation of the lesions.

Quality in MR reporting of the prostate – improving acquisition, the role of AI and future perspectives

The high quality of MRI reporting of the prostate is the most critical component of the service provided by a radiologist. Prostate MRI structured reporting with PI-RADS v. 2.1 has been proven to improve consistency, quality, guideline-based care in the management of prostate cancer. There is room for improved accuracy of prostate mpMRI reporting, particularly as PI-RADS core criteria are subjective for radiologists. The application of artificial intelligence may support radiologists in interpreting MRI scans. This review addresses the quality of prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) structured reporting (include improvements in acquisition using artificial intelligence) in terms of size of prostate gland, imaging quality, lesion location, lesion size, TNM staging, sector map, and discusses the future prospects of quality in MR reporting.