3.0 T prostate MRI: Visual assessment of 2D and 3D T2-weighted imaging sequences using PI-QUAL score.

PURPOSE: Comparing 2D and 3D T2 weighted sequences in terms of image quality in 3.0 T MRI with readers of varied experiences, using PI-QUAL inspired criteria. METHODS: 91 male patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) underwent diagnostic prostate MRI on a 3.0 T MR system using a 32-channel phased-array torso coil before prostate biopsy. MRI protocol included 3D T2w images, axial 2D T2w images, axial diffusion-weighted images (DWI) with the corresponding ADC apparent diffusion coefficient maps, and axial dynamic contrast enhanced images. 3D T2w and 2D T2w imaging were compared by 4 radiologists using a Likert scale for image quality (overall anatomy, delineation of capsule, seminal vesicles, ejaculatory ducts, sphincter muscle, artifacts), tumor delimitation and conspicuity. RESULTS: No significant differences in terms of overall quality between 3D and 2D T2w images were found. However 2D T2w demonstrated higher rating than 3D T2w images as for the image quality of the external capsule, sphincter muscle and ejaculatory ducts delineation (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: 3D T2w sequence can't replace 2D T2w sequence, despite good quality images but it remains more prone to artifacts. Quality of 2D T2w sequences was substantially superior to 3D sequences for delineation of key structures as external capsule, sphincter muscle. The use of PI-QUAL criteria allows reproducible analysis of the quality of T2 weighted images.

Promoting the use of the PRECISE score for prostate MRI during active surveillance: results from the ESOR Nicholas Gourtsoyiannis teaching fellowship.

OBJECTIVES: The PRECISE criteria for serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate during active surveillance recommend the use of a dedicated scoring system (PRECISE score) to assess the likelihood of clinically significant radiological change. This pilot study assesses the effect of an interactive teaching course on prostate MRI during active surveillance in assessing radiological change in serial imaging. METHODS: Eleven radiology fellows and registrars with different experience in prostate MRI reading participated in a dedicated teaching course where they initially evaluated radiological change (based on their previous training in prostate MRI reading) independently in fifteen patients on active surveillance (baseline and follow-up scan), and then attended a lecture on the PRECISE score. The initial scans were reviewed for teaching purposes and afterwards the participants re-assessed the degree of radiological change in a new set of images (from fifteen different patients) applying the PRECISE score. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed. Confirmatory biopsies and PRECISE scores given in consensus by two radiologists (involved in the original draft of the PRECISE score) were the reference standard. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in the average area under the curve (AUC) for the assessment of radiological change from baseline (AUC: 0.60 [Confidence Intervals: 0.51-0.69] to post-teaching (AUC: 0.77 [0.70-0.84]). This was an improvement of 0.17 [0.016-0.28] (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated teaching course on the use of the PRECISE score improves the accuracy in the assessment of radiological change in serial MRI of the prostate.