Deep Learning‐Based T2‐Weighted MR Image Quality Assessment and Its Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection Rates

Background Image quality evaluation of prostate MRI is important for successful implementation of MRI into localized prostate cancer diagnosis. Purpose To examine the impact of image quality on prostate cancer detection using an in‐house previously developed artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm. Study Type Retrospective. Subjects 615 consecutive patients (median age 67 [interquartile range [IQR]: 61–71] years) with elevated serum PSA (median PSA 6.6 [IQR: 4.6–9.8] ng/mL) prior to prostate biopsy. Field Strength/Sequence 3.0T/T2‐weighted turbo‐spin‐echo MRI , high b ‐value echo‐planar diffusion‐weighted imaging, and gradient recalled echo dynamic contrast‐enhanced. Assessments Scans were prospectively evaluated during clinical readout using PI‐RADSv2.1 by one genitourinary radiologist with 17 years of experience. For each patient, T2‐weighted images (T2WIs) were classified as high‐quality or low‐quality based on evaluation of both general distortions (eg, motion, distortion, noise, and aliasing) and perceptual distortions (eg, obscured delineation of prostatic capsule, prostatic zones, and excess rectal gas) by a previously developed in‐house AI algorithm. Patients with PI‐RADS category 1 underwent 12‐core ultrasound‐guided systematic biopsy while those with PI‐RADS category 2–5 underwent combined systematic and targeted biopsies. Patient‐level cancer detection rates (CDRs) were calculated for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group ≥2) by each biopsy method and compared between high‐ and low‐quality images in each PI‐RADS category. Statistical Tests Fisher's exact test. Bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CI). A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results 385 (63%) T2WIs were classified as high‐quality and 230 (37%) as low‐quality by AI. Targeted biopsy with high‐quality T2WIs resulted in significantly higher clinically significant CDR than low‐quality images for PI‐RADS category 4 lesions (52% [95% CI: 43–61] vs. 32% [95% CI: 22–42]). For combined biopsy, there was no significant difference in patient‐level CDRs for PI‐RADS 4 between high‐ and low‐quality T2WIs (56% [95% CI: 47–64] vs. 44% [95% CI: 34–55]; P = 0.09). Data Conclusion Higher quality T2WIs were associated with better targeted biopsy clinically significant cancer detection performance for PI‐RADS 4 lesions. Combined biopsy might be needed when T2WI is lower quality. Level of Evidence 2 Technical Efficacy Stage 1