Imaging Facilities' Adherence to PI-RADS v2 Minimum Technical Standards for the Performance of Prostate MRI

Purpose: This study aimed to assess variability in imaging facilities' adherence to the minimum technical standards for prostate magnetic resonance imaging acquisition established by Prostate Imaging -Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 (v2). Methods: A total of 107 prostate magnetic resonance imaging examinations performed at 107 unique imaging facilities after the release of PI-RADS v2 and that were referred to a tertiary care center for secondary interpretation were included. Image sets, DICOM headers, and outside reports were reviewed to assess adherence to 21 selected PI-RADS v2 minimum technical standards. Results: Hardware arrangements were 23.1%, 1.5T without endorectal coil; 7.7%, 1.5T with endorectal coil; 63.5%, 3T without endorectal coil; and 5.8%, 3T with endorectal coil. Adherence to minimum standards was lowest on T2 weighted imaging (T2WI) for frequency resolution 50.4 mm (16.8%) and phase resolution <= 0.7 mm (48.6%), lowest on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for field of view (FOV) 120-220 mm (30.0%), and lowest on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging for slice thickness 3 mm (33.3%) and temporal resolution <10 s (31.5%). High b-value (>= 1400 s/mm(2)) images were included in 58.0% (calculated in 25.9%). Adherence to T2WI phase resolution and DWI inter-slice gap were greater (P <.05) at 3T than at 1.5T. Adherence did not differ (P >.05) for any parameter between examinations performed with and without an endorectal coil. Adherence was greater for examinations performed at teaching facilities for T2WI slice thickness and DCE temporal resolution (P <.05). Adherence was not better for examinations performed in 2016 than in 2015 for any parameter (P >.05). Conclusion: Facilities' adherence to PI-RADS v2 minimum technical standards was variable, being particularly poor for T2WI frequency resolution and DCE temporal resolution. The standards warrant greater community education. Certain technical standards may be too stringent, and revisions should be considered.