Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 29, 2025
A Cognitive Fusion-guided Prostate Biopsy Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound
Published on: March 21, 2025
Inter-reader agreement of the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score: A bicentric study
Rossano Girometti1, Alfredo Blandino2, Clara Zichichi1
1Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, University Hospital S. Maria della Misericordia, p.le S. Maria della Misericordia n. 15, 33100 Udine, Italy.
Purpose:
To investigate the inter-reader agreement of the Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).
Methods:
We included 66 men who underwent 1.5 T mpMRI in June 2020-July 2020 in center 1, with no exclusion criteria. mpMRI included multiplanar T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE). Two readers from center 2 (experience <1000 to >1500 examinations), blinded to clinical history but not to acquisition parameters, independently assessed PI-QUAL qualitative/anatomical items of each mpMRI sequence, final PI-QUAL score (1-5), and the Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1) category of the index lesion. Cohen's kappa statistics (k) or prevalence-adjusted-bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) were used to calculate the inter-reader agreement in assessing the PI-QUAL (1-to-5 scale and 1-2 versus 3 versus 4-5), the diagnostic quality of each mpMRI sequence, qualitative/anatomical items, and PI-RADSv2.1 category.
Results:
The inter-reader agreement for PI-QUAL category was moderate upon 1-5 scale (k = 0.55; 95%CI 0.39-0.71) or 1-3 scale (k = 0.51; 95%CI 0.29-0.72), with 90.9% examinations categorized PI-QUAL ≥ 3 by readers. The agreement in assessing a sequence as diagnostic was higher for T2WI (k = 0.76) than DCE (PABAK = 0.61) and DWI (k = 0.46), ranging moderate-to-substantial for most of the items. Readers provided comparable PI-RADSv2.1 categorization (k = 0.88 [excellent agreement]; 95%CI 0.81-0.96), with most PI-RADSv2.1 ≥ 3 assignments found in PI-QUAL ≥ 3 examinations (43/46 by reader 1, and 47/47 by reader 2).
Conclusions:
The reproducibility of PI-QUAL was moderate. Higher PI-QUAL scores were associated with excellent inter-reader agreement for PI-RADSv2.1 categorization.
