ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Multi-reader evaluation of the prostate imaging quality score system version 2 (PI-QUAL V2) and its clinical application.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimal Selection of the Effective Echo Time (TEJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- Prostate MRI quality improvement: a Roadmap from the ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group.European radiology · 2026Review
- Multi-center and multi-reader comparison of abdominopelvic non-contrast and contrast-enhanced CT in the postoperative surveillance of gastrointestinal stromal tumors.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Prostate MRI: Addressing Current Limitations Through Emerging Technologies.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Review
- Prostate MRI Quality Assessment: PI-QUAL and Factors Influencing Image Quality.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe objectives of this study were: (1) to investigate the consistency of PI-QUAL V2 and (2) to observe the impact of PI-QUAL V2 on the diagnostic performance for csPCa.
methodsThis retrospective study included 581 patients who underwent prostate MRI exams and had definitive pathological reports between January and December 2023. All histopathological specimens were evaluated, and an ISUP Grade Group ≥ 2 was considered as csPCa. Four radiologists independently assigned PI-QUAL V2 scores to each patient, with one of the readers re-scoring after a three-month interval. Cohen's and Fleiss' Kappa were used to determine inter-reader agreement, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) was used to compare diagnostic performance. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe study comprised 581 individuals (median [IQR] age, 70 [66-75] years). The consistency was moderate for T2WI, DWI, and PI-QUAL V2, and substantial for DCE. For PI-RADS V2.1 categorization tasks, the proportion of PI-RADS 3 gradually decreased with improving image quality, and a statistical difference was found between PI-QUAL 1 and 3 (p < 0.001). However, regardless of whether PI-RADS ≥ 3 or ≥ 4 was used as the "suspicious for cancer" threshold, there was no significant difference in overall diagnostic performance for csPCa among different PI-QUAL V2 scores (AUC 0.741-0.844).
conclusionPI-QUAL V2 plays a positive role in inter-reader reproducibility and radiologists' MRI diagnosis. Regarding the limited value of PI-QUAL V2 in the overall diagnosis of csPCa, further exploration with larger sample sizes and studies may be needed in the future. KEY POINTS: Question PI-QUAL V2 has overcome the limitations of V1, but its clinical application status remains uncertain. Findings PI-QUAL V2 exhibits a favorable impact on inter-reader reproducibility and radiologists' MRI diagnosis, albeit its overall impact on diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer remains limited. Clinical relevance While simplifying the scoring system, PI-QUAL V2 retains high inter-reader agreement. A suboptimal PI-QUAL V2 score may undermine radiologists' confidence in image interpretation, resulting in a decreased detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40377676What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.