Andrei S Purysko1, Nathan Mielke2, Jennifer Bullen3, Douglas Nachand2, Alain Rizk2, Erica Stevens4, Ryan D Ward2, Eric A Klein5, Andrew B Rosenkrantz6, Justin M Ream2. 1. Imaging institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, JB-322, Cleveland, OH 44145; Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: puryska@ccf.org. 2. Imaging institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, JB-322, Cleveland, OH 44145. 3. Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. 6. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of enema and dietary restrictions on prostate MR image quality metrics and to assess inter-reader agreement for these metrics. METHODS: This retrospective study included 195 men divided into groups based on their compliance with preparation instructions before prostate MRI (Enema + Diet, n = 98; Enema, n = 42; Diet, n = 35; Control [no compliance], n = 20). Four readers independently assessed six image quality metrics on a 5-point scale. Between-group comparisons were made using Wilcoxon rank sum test. Inter-reader agreement was calculated using Fleiss' kappa. RESULTS: Compared with the Control group, image quality with respect to rectal stool/gas, distortion of diffusion-weighted images, overall image quality, and confidence in assessment was higher in the Enema + Diet, Enema, and Diet groups (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). The Enema + Diet and Enema groups had significantly higher scores than the Diet group for rectal stool/gas (p < 0.001 and 0.005, respectively). The Enema + Diet and Diet groups had higher scores than the Control group for rectal peristalsis (p = 0.027 and 0.009, respectively), but there were no significant differences in motion artifacts on T2-weighted images. Agreement among readers was fair, with kappa values ranging from 0.25 to 0.37. CONCLUSION: Enema and dietary restriction can improve the quality of prostate MRI by decreasing rectal distension and distortion of diffusion-weighted images and by increasing reader confidence in image assessment. Inter-reader agreement using subjective criteria for analysis of MRI quality is fair.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of enema and dietary restrictions on prostate MR image quality metrics and to assess inter-reader agreement for these metrics. METHODS: This retrospective study included 195 men divided into groups based on their compliance with preparation instructions before prostate MRI (Enema + Diet, n = 98; Enema, n = 42; Diet, n = 35; Control [no compliance], n = 20). Four readers independently assessed six image quality metrics on a 5-point scale. Between-group comparisons were made using Wilcoxon rank sum test. Inter-reader agreement was calculated using Fleiss' kappa. RESULTS: Compared with the Control group, image quality with respect to rectal stool/gas, distortion of diffusion-weighted images, overall image quality, and confidence in assessment was higher in the Enema + Diet, Enema, and Diet groups (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). The Enema + Diet and Enema groups had significantly higher scores than the Diet group for rectal stool/gas (p < 0.001 and 0.005, respectively). The Enema + Diet and Diet groups had higher scores than the Control group for rectal peristalsis (p = 0.027 and 0.009, respectively), but there were no significant differences in motion artifacts on T2-weighted images. Agreement among readers was fair, with kappa values ranging from 0.25 to 0.37. CONCLUSION: Enema and dietary restriction can improve the quality of prostate MRI by decreasing rectal distension and distortion of diffusion-weighted images and by increasing reader confidence in image assessment. Inter-reader agreement using subjective criteria for analysis of MRI quality is fair.
Authors: Cynthia Schmidt; Andreas M Hötker; Urs J Muehlematter; Irene A Burger; Olivio F Donati; Borna K Barth Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-03-26
Authors: Devaki Shilpa S Surasi; Xuemei Wang; Tharakeswara K Bathala; Hyunsoo Hwang; Sandeep Arora; Antonio C Westphalen; Silvia D Chang; Baris Turkbey Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-04-27
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Alex Kirkham; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Marianthi-Vasiliki Papoutsaki; Shonit Punwani; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Clare Allen Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2021-05-01
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Alex Kirkham; Shonit Punwani; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Clare Allen Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 3.039