González RCN, Perochena GA, Gómez PMG

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 345-350
PDF size: 1504.53 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: prostate cancer is the second most common neoplasm in men; Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reduces unnecessary procedures, overdiagnoses, overtreatments and improves precision and optimization of resources. The image quality evaluated through PI-QUAL is key and is based on technical and visual criteria. Objective: to evaluate the quality of prostate MRI performed in the period 2022-2024 at the Angeles Pedregal Hospital through the PI-QUAL v2 model. Material and methods: descriptive statistics of the variables were carried out. Associations between demographic and imaging variables were analyzed with the PI-QUAL v2 score. The results were compared between 3T and 1.5T resonators. Results: 241 studies were reviewed. We scored PI-QUAL1, 2, and 3 at 1, 14 and 85%, respectively. We found a statistically significant advantage with 3T resonators, 85% of the studies obtained PI-QUIAL score 3 (p ‹ 0.001), while none of those performed with 1.5T resonators. The absence of artifacts positively correlated with a PI-QUAL score of 3. Conclusion: in our center 85% of the studies are of optimal quality PI-QUAL 3, it is also observed that the use of 3T resonators showed a clear advantage over 1.5 T resonators as it was associated with higher image quality.

REFERENCES

1. Global Cancer Observatory. https://gco.iarc.who.int/media/globocan/factsheets/populations/484-mexico-fact-sheet

2. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Wever E, Gulati R et al.Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening:importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(6): 374-83. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp001.

3. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW,Hunink MG. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy mayenhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancerdetection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guidedbiopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015; 68(3): 438-450.

4. Giganti F, Kirkham A, Kasivisvanathan V, Papoutsaki MV, PunwaniS, Emberton M, Moore CM, Allen C. Understanding PI-QUAL forprostate MRI quality: a practical primer for radiologists. InsightsImaging. 2021; 12 (1): 59. doi: 10.1186/s13244-021-00996-6.

5. De Rooij M, Allen C, Twilt JJ, Thijssen LCP, Asbach P, Barrett T et al.PI-QUAL version 2: an update of a standardised scoring system forthe assessment of image quality of prostate MRI. Eur Radiol. 2024;34 (11): 7068-7079. doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10795-4.

6. Ponsiglione A, Brembilla G, Cuocolo R, Gutierrez P, Moreira AS,Pecoraro M et al. ESR Essentials: using the right scoring system inprostate MRI-practice recommendations by ESUR. Eur Radiol. 2024;34 (11): 7481-7491. doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10792-7.

7. Wang R, Pinto D, Liu T, Hamade M, Jubane M, Arif A et al. Effectof a dedicated PI-QUAL curriculum on the assessment of prostateMRI quality. Eur J Radiol. 2023; 164: 110865. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110865.

8. Ponsiglione A, Girometti R. PI-QUAL version 2: the radiologist’sperspective. Eur Radiol. 2024; 34 (11): 7065-7067. doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10845-x.

9. Giganti F, Kasivisvanathan V, Kirkham A, Punwani S, Emberton M,Moore CM et al. Prostate MRI quality: a critical review of the last 5years and the role of the PI-QUAL score. Br J Radiol. 2022; 95 (1131):20210415. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210415.

10. Ponsiglione A, Cereser L, Spina E, Mannacio L, Negroni D, Russo Let al. PI-QUAL version 2: A Multi-Reader reproducibility study onmultiparametric MRI from a tertiary referral center. Eur J Radiol. 2024;181: 111716. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111716.