Title |
Understanding PI-QUAL for prostate MRI quality: a practical primer for radiologists
|
---|---|
Published in |
Insights into Imaging, May 2021
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13244-021-00996-6 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Francesco Giganti, Alex Kirkham, Veeru Kasivisvanathan, Marianthi-Vasiliki Papoutsaki, Shonit Punwani, Mark Emberton, Caroline M. Moore, Clare Allen |
Abstract |
Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of high diagnostic quality is a key determinant for either detection or exclusion of prostate cancer. Adequate high spatial resolution on T2-weighted imaging, good diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences of high signal-to-noise ratio are the prerequisite for a high-quality MRI study of the prostate. The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score was created to assess the diagnostic quality of a scan against a set of objective criteria as per Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System recommendations, together with criteria obtained from the image. The PI-QUAL score is a 1-to-5 scale where a score of 1 indicates that all MR sequences (T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences) are below the minimum standard of diagnostic quality, a score of 3 means that the scan is of sufficient diagnostic quality, and a score of 5 implies that all three sequences are of optimal diagnostic quality. The purpose of this educational review is to provide a practical guide to assess the quality of prostate MRI using PI-QUAL and to familiarise the radiologist and all those involved in prostate MRI with this scoring system. A variety of images are also presented to demonstrate the difference between suboptimal and good prostate MR scans. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 5 | 19% |
United States | 4 | 15% |
Austria | 2 | 7% |
Denmark | 1 | 4% |
Australia | 1 | 4% |
Mexico | 1 | 4% |
Switzerland | 1 | 4% |
Argentina | 1 | 4% |
Spain | 1 | 4% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 10 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 12 | 44% |
Scientists | 9 | 33% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 19% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 14 | 24% |
Other | 6 | 10% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 5% |
Student > Master | 3 | 5% |
Other | 9 | 16% |
Unknown | 19 | 33% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 29% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
Psychology | 2 | 3% |
Engineering | 2 | 3% |
Other | 6 | 10% |
Unknown | 25 | 43% |