Impact of prostate MRI image quality on diagnostic performance for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

OBJECTIVES

With the widespread clinical application of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), there has been an increasing demand for lesion detection and accurate diagnosis in prostate MR, which relies heavily on satisfactory image quality. Focusing on the primary sequences involved in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), this study have evaluated common quality issues in clinical practice (such as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), artifacts, boundaries, and enhancement). The aim of the study was to determine the impact of image quality on clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection, positive predictive value (PPV) and radiologist's diagnosis in different sequences and prostate zones.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 306 patients who underwent prostate MRI with definitive pathological reports from February 2021 to December 2022. All histopathological specimens were evaluated according to the recommendations of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP). An ISUP Grade Group ≥ 2 was considered as csPCa. Three radiologists from different centers respectively performed a binary classification assessment of image quality in the following ten aspects: (1) T2WI in the axial plane: SNR, prostate boundary conditions, the presence of artifacts; (2) T2WI in the sagittal or coronal plane: prostate boundary conditions; (3) DWI: SNR, delineation between the peripheral and transition zone, the presence of artifacts, the matching of DWI and T2WI images; (4) DCE: the evaluation of obturator artery enhancement, the evaluation of dynamic contrast enhancement. Fleiss' Kappa was used to determine the inter-reader agreement. Wilson's 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used to calculate PPV. Chi-square test was used to calculate statistical significance. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

High-quality images had a higher csPCa detection rate (56.5% to 64.3%) in axial T2WI, DWI, and DCE, with significant statistical differences in SNR in axial T2WI (p 0.002), the presence of artifacts in axial T2WI (p 0.044), the presence of artifacts in DWI (p < 0.001), and the matching of DWI and T2WI images (p < 0.001). High-quality images had a higher PPV (72.5% to 78.8%) and showed significant statistical significance in axial T2WI, DWI, and DCE. Additionally, we found that PI-RADS 3 (24.0% to 52.9%) contained more low-quality images compared to PI-RADS 4-5 (20.6% to 39.3%), with significant statistical differences in the prostate boundary conditions in axial T2WI (p 0.048) and the presence of artifacts in DWI (p 0.001). Regarding the relationship between csPCa detection and image quality in different prostate zones, this study found that significant statistical differences were only observed between high- (63.5% to 75.7%) and low-quality (30.0% to 50.0%) images in the peripheral zone (PZ).

CONCLUSION

Prostate MRI quality may have an impact on the diagnostic performance. The poorer image quality is associated with lower csPCa detection rates and PPV, which can lead to an increase in radiologist's ambiguous diagnosis (PI-RADS 3), especially for the lesions located at PZ.