Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40377676›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2025

Multi-reader evaluation of the prostate imaging quality score system version 2 (PI-QUAL V2) and its clinical application.

Yue Cheng, Liting Shen, Qian Liao, Jiangbo Qin, Yao Niu, Lei Zhang, Liang Wang, Zhenghan Yang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Optimal Selection of the Effective Echo Time (TEJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Yue ChengDepartment of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Liting ShenDepartment of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Qian LiaoDepartment of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jiangbo QinDepartment of Radiology, The First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Shanxi, China.
Yao NiuDepartment of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Lei ZhangDepartment of Radiology, The Second People's Hospital of Baoshan, Yunnan, China.
Liang WangDepartment of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 1311935212@qq.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3141-2609
Zhenghan YangDepartment of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. yangzhenghan@vip.163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3986-1732

Funding

Ministry of Science and Technology's High Technology Research and Development 2022YFB3203801Ministry of Science and Technology's High Technology Research and Development 2022YFB3203802the National Natural Science Foundation of China 81971680the National Natural Science Foundation of China 82071887
6 · The paper itself

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

Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsAgedHumansMaleObserver VariationProstateReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesDiagnostic imagingMagnetic resonance imagingProstate cancerProstate imaging quality scoring system version 2

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.