View in EDS

Assessing breast MRI image quality: the bMRI-QUAL scoring system.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Assessing breast MRI image quality: the bMRI-QUAL scoring system.
Authors:	Marziali, Sara¹ (AUTHOR), Corradini, Lisa² (AUTHOR), Depretto, Catherine² (AUTHOR), Della Pepa, Gianmarco² (AUTHOR), Irmici, Giovanni² (AUTHOR), Rossini, Gabriele² (AUTHOR), Zanardo, Moreno³ (AUTHOR), Bonetti, Gabriele⁴ (AUTHOR), Scaperrotta, Gianfranco P.² (AUTHOR), Sardanelli, Francesco⁴ (AUTHOR) francesco.sardanelli@legatumori.mi.it
Source:	European Radiology. Jul2026, Vol. 36 Issue 7, p5669-5677. 9p.
Abstract:	Objective: The performance of breast MRI (bMRI) depends on image quality, varying due to patient-related or technical/protocol factors. The resulting artifacts can heavily reduce sensitivity and specificity. We developed a bMRI quality scoring system (bMRI-QUAL) for the bMRI standard protocol. Materials and methods: Two independent readers with 3 years of experience evaluated 133 consecutive 1.5-T examinations (sample size calculated to ensure reproducibility). Each sequence was rated on a 4-point scale: 0 = not diagnostic; 1 = relevant artifacts with conserved diagnostic value; 2 = slight artifacts with conserved diagnostic value; 3 = excellent image quality. Each score was weighted in the following formula: (T2-weighted * 1) + (diffusion weighted imaging with b = 0 * 0.5) + (apparent diffusion coefficient maps * 0.5) + (T1-weighted-precontrast * 1) + (T1-weighted-postcontrast * 2) + (T1-weighted-subtracted * 3). This sum was divided by 2.4, obtaining a 0-to-10 global score (GS), with < 6 considered insufficient. Results: The average GS between the two readers was 8.3 ± 1.0, with 102/133 examinations (76.7%) receiving a score ≥ 7 from both readers. Only one case (0.8%) was scored < 6 by both readers. The Bland-Altman analysis showed bias of −0.12, with limits of agreement ranging from −2.52 to +2.29. The difference in GS between the two readers (coverage probability) was 72/133 (54.1%) within ±1 and 123/133 (92.5%) within ±2. Coverage probability within ±1 point ranged from 94.0% to 99.2% across sequences. Average evaluation time/examination was 3 min. Conclusions: bMRI-QUAL is a reproducible quality scoring system. Breast MRI image quality at a tertiary cancer center was good to excellent in approximately 80% of cases. Key Points: QuestionBreast MRI image quality varies widely and can compromise diagnostic accuracy. A standardized, clinically weighted scoring system is needed to guide repeat-scan decisions and facilitate quality assurance. FindingsIn 133 breast MRIs, the bMRI-QUAL 0-to-10 scoring system proved to be reproducible. Readers assigned a good-to-excellent mean score (8.3) with a 3-min evaluation time. Clinical relevancebMRI-QUAL provides a relatively fast and reproducible evaluation of breast MRI image quality, with each sequence weighted according to its clinical relevance for lesion detection/characterization. It can support decision-making regarding insufficient image quality and facilitate quality assurance protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Engineering Source

Description
Abstract:	Objective: The performance of breast MRI (bMRI) depends on image quality, varying due to patient-related or technical/protocol factors. The resulting artifacts can heavily reduce sensitivity and specificity. We developed a bMRI quality scoring system (bMRI-QUAL) for the bMRI standard protocol. Materials and methods: Two independent readers with 3 years of experience evaluated 133 consecutive 1.5-T examinations (sample size calculated to ensure reproducibility). Each sequence was rated on a 4-point scale: 0 = not diagnostic; 1 = relevant artifacts with conserved diagnostic value; 2 = slight artifacts with conserved diagnostic value; 3 = excellent image quality. Each score was weighted in the following formula: (T2-weighted * 1) + (diffusion weighted imaging with b = 0 * 0.5) + (apparent diffusion coefficient maps * 0.5) + (T1-weighted-precontrast * 1) + (T1-weighted-postcontrast * 2) + (T1-weighted-subtracted * 3). This sum was divided by 2.4, obtaining a 0-to-10 global score (GS), with < 6 considered insufficient. Results: The average GS between the two readers was 8.3 ± 1.0, with 102/133 examinations (76.7%) receiving a score ≥ 7 from both readers. Only one case (0.8%) was scored < 6 by both readers. The Bland-Altman analysis showed bias of −0.12, with limits of agreement ranging from −2.52 to +2.29. The difference in GS between the two readers (coverage probability) was 72/133 (54.1%) within ±1 and 123/133 (92.5%) within ±2. Coverage probability within ±1 point ranged from 94.0% to 99.2% across sequences. Average evaluation time/examination was 3 min. Conclusions: bMRI-QUAL is a reproducible quality scoring system. Breast MRI image quality at a tertiary cancer center was good to excellent in approximately 80% of cases. Key Points: QuestionBreast MRI image quality varies widely and can compromise diagnostic accuracy. A standardized, clinically weighted scoring system is needed to guide repeat-scan decisions and facilitate quality assurance. FindingsIn 133 breast MRIs, the bMRI-QUAL 0-to-10 scoring system proved to be reproducible. Readers assigned a good-to-excellent mean score (8.3) with a 3-min evaluation time. Clinical relevancebMRI-QUAL provides a relatively fast and reproducible evaluation of breast MRI image quality, with each sequence weighted according to its clinical relevance for lesion detection/characterization. It can support decision-making regarding insufficient image quality and facilitate quality assurance protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	09387994
DOI:	10.1007/s00330-026-12439-1