PI-QUAL version 2 image quality categorisation and inter-reader agreement compared to version 1.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
European Radiology Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1007/s00330-024-11233-1
Kang-Lung Lee, Iztok Caglic, Po-Hsiang Liao, Dimitri A Kessler, Chao-Yu Guo, Tristan Barrett
{"title":"PI-QUAL version 2 image quality categorisation and inter-reader agreement compared to version 1.","authors":"Kang-Lung Lee, Iztok Caglic, Po-Hsiang Liao, Dimitri A Kessler, Chao-Yu Guo, Tristan Barrett","doi":"10.1007/s00330-024-11233-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) was developed to standardise the evaluation of prostate MRI quality and has recently been updated to version 2. This study aims to assess inter-reader agreement for PI-QUAL v1 and v2 scores and investigates changes in MRI quality score categories.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study retrospectively analysed 350 multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) scans. Two expert uroradiologists independently assessed mpMRI quality using PI-QUAL v1 and v2 guidelines. Biparametric MRI (bpMRI) categorisation based on PI-QUAL v2 included only T2WI and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) results. Inter-reader agreement was determined using percentage agreement and kappa, and categorisation comparisons were made using the chi-square test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Substantial inter-reader agreement was observed for the overall PI-QUAL v1 score (κ = 0.64) and moderate agreement for v2 mpMRI (κ = 0.54) and v2 bpMRI scores (κ = 0.57). Inter-reader agreements on individual sequences were similar between v1 and v2 (kappa for individual sequences: T2WI, 0.46 and 0.49; DWI, 0.66 and 0.70; DCE, 0.71 and 0.61). Quality levels shifted from predominantly \"optimal\" in v1 (65%) down to \"acceptable\" using v2 (55%); p < 0.001. The addition of DCE increased the proportion of cases with at least \"adequate\" quality at mpMRI (64%) compared to bpMRI (30%); p < 0.001.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study shows consistent inter-reader agreement between PI-QUAL v1 and v2, encompassing overall and individual sequence categorisation. A notable shift from \"optimal\" to \"acceptable\" quality was demonstrated when moving from v1 to v2, with DCE tending improving quality from \"inadequate\" (bpMRI) to \"acceptable\" (mpMRI).</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question What are the agreement levels of image quality of prostate MRI by using PI-QUAL v1 and v2? Findings Inter-reader agreement based on PI-QUAL v1 and v2 is comparable. Dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) enables an overall shift from inadequate quality (at bpMRI) to acceptable quality (mpMRI). Clinical relevance The inter-reader agreement on PI-QUAL v1 and v2 is equivalent. PI-QUAL v2 assesses prostate bpMRI as well as mpMRI quality. Transitioning from inadequate to acceptable between v2-bpMRI and v2-mpMRI highlights the role of DCE as an \"image quality safety net.\"</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"3096-3104"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12081583/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11233-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) was developed to standardise the evaluation of prostate MRI quality and has recently been updated to version 2. This study aims to assess inter-reader agreement for PI-QUAL v1 and v2 scores and investigates changes in MRI quality score categories.

Materials and methods: The study retrospectively analysed 350 multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) scans. Two expert uroradiologists independently assessed mpMRI quality using PI-QUAL v1 and v2 guidelines. Biparametric MRI (bpMRI) categorisation based on PI-QUAL v2 included only T2WI and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) results. Inter-reader agreement was determined using percentage agreement and kappa, and categorisation comparisons were made using the chi-square test.

Results: Substantial inter-reader agreement was observed for the overall PI-QUAL v1 score (κ = 0.64) and moderate agreement for v2 mpMRI (κ = 0.54) and v2 bpMRI scores (κ = 0.57). Inter-reader agreements on individual sequences were similar between v1 and v2 (kappa for individual sequences: T2WI, 0.46 and 0.49; DWI, 0.66 and 0.70; DCE, 0.71 and 0.61). Quality levels shifted from predominantly "optimal" in v1 (65%) down to "acceptable" using v2 (55%); p < 0.001. The addition of DCE increased the proportion of cases with at least "adequate" quality at mpMRI (64%) compared to bpMRI (30%); p < 0.001.

Conclusion: This study shows consistent inter-reader agreement between PI-QUAL v1 and v2, encompassing overall and individual sequence categorisation. A notable shift from "optimal" to "acceptable" quality was demonstrated when moving from v1 to v2, with DCE tending improving quality from "inadequate" (bpMRI) to "acceptable" (mpMRI).

Key points: Question What are the agreement levels of image quality of prostate MRI by using PI-QUAL v1 and v2? Findings Inter-reader agreement based on PI-QUAL v1 and v2 is comparable. Dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) enables an overall shift from inadequate quality (at bpMRI) to acceptable quality (mpMRI). Clinical relevance The inter-reader agreement on PI-QUAL v1 and v2 is equivalent. PI-QUAL v2 assesses prostate bpMRI as well as mpMRI quality. Transitioning from inadequate to acceptable between v2-bpMRI and v2-mpMRI highlights the role of DCE as an "image quality safety net."

PI-QUAL版本2图像质量分类和阅读器间协议与版本1的比较。
目的:前列腺成像质量(PI-QUAL)是为了标准化评估前列腺MRI质量而开发的,最近更新到第2版。本研究旨在评估PI-QUAL v1和v2评分的读者间一致性,并调查MRI质量评分类别的变化。材料和方法:该研究回顾性分析了350次多参数MRI (mpMRI)扫描。两名放射学专家使用PI-QUAL v1和v2指南独立评估mpMRI质量。基于PI-QUAL v2的双参数MRI (bpMRI)分类仅包括T2WI和弥散加权成像(DWI)结果。使用百分比一致性和kappa确定读者间一致性,使用卡方检验进行分类比较。结果:总体PI-QUAL v1评分(κ = 0.64)和v2 mpMRI评分(κ = 0.54)和v2 bpMRI评分(κ = 0.57)的读者间一致。v1和v2对单个序列的解读间一致性相似(单个序列kappa: T2WI, 0.46和0.49;DWI分别为0.66和0.70;DCE分别为0.71和0.61)。质量水平从v1的主要“最佳”(65%)下降到使用v2的“可接受”(55%);p结论:本研究显示PI-QUAL v1和v2之间的读者间一致,包括整体和个体序列分类。当从v1移动到v2时,质量从“最佳”到“可接受”的显著转变被证明,DCE倾向于将质量从“不充分”(bpMRI)提高到“可接受”(mpMRI)。使用PI-QUAL v1和v2对前列腺MRI图像质量的一致程度是什么?结果基于PI-QUAL v1和v2的读者间协议具有可比性。动态对比度增强(DCE)使质量从不足(bpMRI)全面转变为可接受的质量(mpMRI)。PI-QUAL v1和v2的读者间协议是相同的。PI-QUAL v2评估前列腺bpMRI和mpMRI质量。在v2-bpMRI和v2-mpMRI之间从不合格到可接受的过渡突出了DCE作为“图像质量安全网”的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信