European journal of radiology · 2026
Prostate MRI quality assessment using PI-QUAL version 2: Comparative analysis between 1.5 T and 3 T scanners and its association with T-staging agreement.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Song Ji Soo, Jang Weon
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess prostate MRI image quality using Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) version 2, to compare quality distributions between 1.5 T and 3 T MRI scanners, and to evaluate the association between image quality and concordance of MRI-based and pathological T-staging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 416 patients who underwent preoperative prostate MRI followed by radical prostatectomy between December 2021 and August 2024. MRI examinations were performed using one 1.5 T scanner and two 3 T scanners. Image quality was independently evaluated by two radiologists using PI-QUAL v2. MRI-based T-staging (mrT2, mrT3a, or mrT3b) was determined by consensus and compared with pathological T-staging. Differences in PI-QUAL scores were analyzed across scanners, and the association between PI-QUAL score and T-stage mismatch was evaluated using logistic regression. Inter-observer agreement was assessed using percent agreement and Gwet's agreement coefficients.
RESULTS: The proportion of examinations with acceptable image quality (PI-QUAL v2 ≥ 2) was significantly higher in 3 T group than in 1.5 T group (85.8% vs. 75.2%, p = 0.004). Among the three MRI scanners, the proportion of examinations with acceptable image quality differed significantly across scanners, with the highest proportion observed in MR2 (1.5 T: 75.2%, MR1: 82.6%, MR2: 89.1%; p = 0.026). PI-QUAL scores were significantly higher in cases with concordant MRI-based and pathological T-staging than in mismatched cases (p = 0.010). Higher PI-QUAL scores were independently associated with improved T-staging agreement (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.16; p = 0.003), particularly in the 3 T subgroup. Inter-observer agreement for PI-QUAL v2 parameters was generally substantial to almost perfect, with variability observed for diffusion-weighted imaging parameters.
CONCLUSION: Higher prostate MRI image quality, as assessed by PI-QUAL v2, is significantly associated with improved concordance between MRI-based and pathological T-staging. These findings support the clinical relevance of standardized image quality assessment and highlight the role of PI-QUAL v2 as a practical quality assurance tool in prostate MRI.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 416 patients who underwent preoperative prostate MRI followed by radical prostatectomy between December 2021 and August 2024. MRI examinations were performed using one 1.5 T scanner and two 3 T scanners. Image quality was independently evaluated by two radiologists using PI-QUAL v2. MRI-based T-staging (mrT2, mrT3a, or mrT3b) was determined by consensus and compared with pathological T-staging. Differences in PI-QUAL scores were analyzed across scanners, and the association between PI-QUAL score and T-stage mismatch was evaluated using logistic regression. Inter-observer agreement was assessed using percent agreement and Gwet's agreement coefficients.
RESULTS: The proportion of examinations with acceptable image quality (PI-QUAL v2 ≥ 2) was significantly higher in 3 T group than in 1.5 T group (85.8% vs. 75.2%, p = 0.004). Among the three MRI scanners, the proportion of examinations with acceptable image quality differed significantly across scanners, with the highest proportion observed in MR2 (1.5 T: 75.2%, MR1: 82.6%, MR2: 89.1%; p = 0.026). PI-QUAL scores were significantly higher in cases with concordant MRI-based and pathological T-staging than in mismatched cases (p = 0.010). Higher PI-QUAL scores were independently associated with improved T-staging agreement (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.16; p = 0.003), particularly in the 3 T subgroup. Inter-observer agreement for PI-QUAL v2 parameters was generally substantial to almost perfect, with variability observed for diffusion-weighted imaging parameters.
CONCLUSION: Higher prostate MRI image quality, as assessed by PI-QUAL v2, is significantly associated with improved concordance between MRI-based and pathological T-staging. These findings support the clinical relevance of standardized image quality assessment and highlight the role of PI-QUAL v2 as a practical quality assurance tool in prostate MRI.