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.

A Faster Prostate MRI: Comparing a Novel Denoised, Single-Average T2 Sequence to the Conventional Multiaverage T2 Sequence Regarding Lesion Detection and PI-RADS Score Assessment.

BACKGROUND: The T2 w sequence is a standard component of a prostate MRI examination; however, it is time-consuming, requiring multiple signal averages to achieve acceptable image quality. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To determine whether a denoised, single-average T2 sequence (T2 -R) is noninferior to the standard multiaverage T2 sequence (T2 -S) in terms of lesion detection and PI-RADS score assessment. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: A total of 45 males (age range 60-75 years) who underwent clinically indicated prostate MRI examinations, 21 of whom had pathologically proven prostate cancer. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 3 T; T2 w FSE, DWI with ADC maps, and dynamic contrast-enhanced images with color-coded perfusion maps. T2 -R images were created from the raw data utilizing a single "average" with iterative denoising. ASSESSMENT: Nine readers randomly assessed complete exams including T2 -R and T2 -S images in separate sessions. PI-RADS version 2.1 was used. All readers then compared the T2 -R and T2 -S images side by side to evaluate subjective preference. An additional detailed image quality assessment was performed by three senior level readers. STATISTICAL TESTS: Generalized linear mixed effects models for differences in lesion detection, image quality features, and overall preference between T2 -R and T2 -S sequences. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess reader agreement for all comparisons. A significance threshold of P = 0.05 was used for all statistical tests. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between sequences regarding identification of lesions with PI-RADS ≥3 (P = 0.10) or PI-RADS score (P = 0.77). Reader agreement was excellent for lesion identification (ICC = 0.84). There was no significant overall preference between the two sequences regarding image quality (P = 0.07, 95% CI: [-0.23, 0.01]). Reader agreement was good regarding sequence preference (ICC = 0.62). DATA CONCLUSION: Use of single-average, denoised T2 -weighted images was noninferior in prostate lesion detection or PI-RADS scoring when compared to standard multiaverage T2 -weighted images. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Enhance Peer Review: Missed Liver Lesions on Computed Tomographic Pulmonary Angiography.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to use artificial intelligence (AI) to facilitate peer review for detection of missed suspicious liver lesions (SLLs) on CT pulmonary angiographic (CTPA) examinations. METHODS: This retrospective study included 1 month of consecutive CTPA examinations from a multisite teleradiology practice. Visual classification (VC) software analyzed images for the presence (+) or absence (-) of SLLs (>1 cm, >20 Hounsfield units). Separately, a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm evaluated corresponding reports for description (+) of an SLL or lack thereof (-). Studies containing possible missed SLLs (VC+/NLP-) were reviewed by three abdominal radiologists in a two-step adjudication process to confirm if an SLL was missed by the interpreting radiologist. The number of VC+/NLP- cases, the number of images needing radiologist review, and the number of cases with confirmed missed SLLs were recorded. Interobserver agreement for SLLs was calculated for the radiologist readers. RESULTS: A total of 2,573 CTPA examinations were assessed, and 136 were classified as potentially containing missed SLLs (VC+/NLP-). After radiologist review, 13 cases with missed SLLs were confirmed, representing 0.5% of analyzed CT studies. Using AI, the ratio of CT studies requiring review to missed SLLs identified was 10:1; the ratio without the help of AI would be at least 66:1. Among the 136 cases reviewed by radiologists, interobserver agreement for SLLs was excellent (κ = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: AI can accelerate meaningful peer review by rapidly assessing thousands of examinations to identify potentially clinically significant errors. Although radiologist involvement is necessary, the amount of effort required after initial AI screening is dramatically reduced.

Comparative Evaluation of Choose Your Own Adventure and Traditional Linear Case Formats in Radiology Small Group Teaching.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We aim to compare Choose Your Own Adventure (CYOA) presentation format with linear case format as educational methods for teaching a radiology small group session to medical students. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A radiology small group session was held for preclinical second-year medical students in the pulmonary course, whereby eight classrooms of students and eight radiology facilitators were each randomized to do either the linear case format or the nonlinear CYOA presentation format. All students in attendance were administered a survey at the end of the session, which assessed students' perceptions using five-point Likert-type questions. The survey also contained a four-question knowledge quiz on chest radiology. The facilitators were administered a qualitative survey as well. Between-group analyses were performed using Student's t-test. RESULTS: Of the 144 students who attended the small group sessions, 143 students completed the survey (99.3%). The CYOA format group reported significantly greater engagement in the cases (4.5 ± 0.7 vs. 3.8 ± 0.7, p < 0.001), satisfaction with the format (4.6 ± 0.6 vs. 3.7 ± 0.9, p < 0.001), and enhancement of clinical decision making skills (4.5 ± 0.6 vs. 3.5 ± 0.9, p < 0.001). The linear format group reported a greater role for the facilitator to add value (4.6 ± 0.5 vs. 4.3 ± 1.1, p = 0.033). There was no significant difference between groups in performance on the knowledge quiz. CONCLUSION: Medical students reported higher satisfaction, engagement, and enhanced clinical decision making skills with the CYOA presentation method compared to linear case format for radiology small group learning.