» Articles » PMID: 38520510

Comparison of Model-based Versus Deep Learning-based Image Reconstruction for Thin-slice T2-weighted Spin-echo Prostate MRI

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2024 Mar 23
PMID 38520510
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To compare a previous model-based image reconstruction (MBIR) with a newly developed deep learning (DL)-based image reconstruction for providing improved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in high through-plane resolution (1 mm) T2-weighted spin-echo (T2SE) prostate MRI.

Methods: Large-area contrast and high-contrast spatial resolution of the reconstruction methods were assessed quantitatively in experimental phantom studies. The methods were next evaluated radiologically in 17 subjects at 3.0 Tesla for whom prostate MRI was clinically indicated. For each subject, the axial T2SE raw data were directed to MBIR and to the DL reconstruction at three vendor-provided levels: (L)ow, (M)edium, and (H)igh. Thin-slice images from the four reconstructions were compared using evaluation criteria related to SNR, sharpness, contrast fidelity, and reviewer preference. Results were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test using Bonferroni correction, and inter-reader comparisons were done using the Cohen and Krippendorf tests.

Results: Baseline contrast and resolution in phantom studies were equivalent for all four reconstruction pathways as desired. In vivo, all three DL levels (L, M, H) provided improved SNR versus MBIR. For virtually, all other evaluation criteria DL L and M were superior to MBIR. DL L and M were evaluated as superior to DL H in fidelity of contrast. For 44 of the 51 evaluations, the DL M reconstruction was preferred.

Conclusion: The deep learning reconstruction method provides significant SNR improvement in thin-slice (1 mm) T2SE images of the prostate while retaining image contrast. However, if taken to too high a level (DL High), both radiological sharpness and fidelity of contrast diminish.

Citing Articles

Ultra-fast biparametric MRI in prostate cancer assessment: Diagnostic performance and image quality compared to conventional multiparametric MRI.

Pausch A, Fillebock V, Elsner C, Rupp N, Eberli D, Hotker A Eur J Radiol Open. 2025; 14:100635.

PMID: 39906153 PMC: 11791330. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejro.2025.100635.

References
1.
Mugler 3rd J . Optimized three-dimensional fast-spin-echo MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014; 39(4):745-67. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24542. View

2.
Vargas H, Akin O, Shukla-Dave A, Zhang J, Zakian K, Zheng J . Performance characteristics of MR imaging in the evaluation of clinically low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective study. Radiology. 2012; 265(2):478-87. PMC: 3480819. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12120041. View

3.
Tong A, Bagga B, Petrocelli R, Smereka P, Vij A, Qian K . Comparison of a Deep Learning-Accelerated vs. Conventional T2-Weighted Sequence in Biparametric MRI of the Prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2023; 58(4):1055-1064. PMC: 10352465. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28602. View

4.
Vidya Shankar R, Roccia E, Cruz G, Neji R, Botnar R, Prezzi D . Accelerated 3D T w-imaging of the prostate with 1-millimeter isotropic resolution in less than 3 minutes. Magn Reson Med. 2019; 82(2):721-731. PMC: 6563534. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.27764. View

5.
Borisch E, Froemming A, Grimm R, Kawashima A, Trzasko J, Riederer S . Model-based image reconstruction with wavelet sparsity regularization for through-plane resolution restoration in T -weighted spin-echo prostate MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2022; 89(1):454-468. PMC: 9617775. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.29447. View