TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of utility of deep learning reconstruction on 3D MRCPs obtained with three different k-space data acquisitions in patients with IPMN
AU - Matsuyama, Takahiro
AU - Ohno, Yoshiharu
AU - Yamamoto, Kaori
AU - Ikedo, Masato
AU - Yui, Masao
AU - Furuta, Minami
AU - Fujisawa, Reina
AU - Hanamatsu, Satomu
AU - Nagata, Hiroyuki
AU - Ueda, Takahiro
AU - Ikeda, Hirotaka
AU - Takeda, Saki
AU - Iwase, Akiyoshi
AU - Fukuba, Takashi
AU - Akamatsu, Hokuto
AU - Hanaoka, Ryota
AU - Kato, Ryoichi
AU - Murayama, Kazuhiro
AU - Toyama, Hiroshi
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.
PY - 2022/10
Y1 - 2022/10
N2 - Objective: To compare the utility of deep learning reconstruction (DLR) for improving acquisition time, image quality, and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) evaluation for 3D MRCP obtained with parallel imaging (PI), multiple k-space data acquisition for each repetition time (TR) technique (Fast 3D mode multiple: Fast 3Dm) and compressed sensing (CS) with PI. Materials and methods: A total of 32 IPMN patients who had undergone 3D MRCPs obtained with PI, Fast 3Dm, and CS with PI and reconstructed with and without DLR were retrospectively included in this study. Acquisition time, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) obtained with all protocols were compared using Tukey’s HSD test. Results of endoscopic ultrasound, ERCP, surgery, or pathological examination were determined as standard reference, and distribution classifications were compared among all 3D MRCP protocols by McNemar’s test. Results: Acquisition times of Fast 3Dm and CS with PI with and without DLR were significantly shorter than those of PI with and without DLR (p < 0.05). Each MRCP sequence with DLR showed significantly higher SNRs and CNRs than those without DLR (p < 0.05). IPMN distribution accuracy of PI with and without DLR and Fast 3Dm with DLR was significantly higher than that of Fast 3Dm without DLR and CS with PI without DLR (p < 0.05). Conclusion: DLR is useful for improving image quality and IPMN evaluation capability on 3D MRCP obtained with PI, Fast 3Dm, or CS with PI. Moreover, Fast 3Dm and CS with PI may play as substitution to PI for MRCP in patients with IPMN. Key Points: • Mean examination times of multiple k-space data acquisitions for each TR and compressed sensing with parallel imaging were significantly shorter than that of parallel imaging (p < 0.0001). • When comparing image quality of 3D MRCPs with and without deep learning reconstruction, deep learning reconstruction significantly improved signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio (p < 0.05). • IPMN distribution accuracies of parallel imaging with and without deep learning reconstruction (with vs. without: 88.0% vs. 88.0%) and multiple k-space data acquisitions for each TR with deep learning reconstruction (86.0%) were significantly higher than those of others (p < 0.05).
AB - Objective: To compare the utility of deep learning reconstruction (DLR) for improving acquisition time, image quality, and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) evaluation for 3D MRCP obtained with parallel imaging (PI), multiple k-space data acquisition for each repetition time (TR) technique (Fast 3D mode multiple: Fast 3Dm) and compressed sensing (CS) with PI. Materials and methods: A total of 32 IPMN patients who had undergone 3D MRCPs obtained with PI, Fast 3Dm, and CS with PI and reconstructed with and without DLR were retrospectively included in this study. Acquisition time, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) obtained with all protocols were compared using Tukey’s HSD test. Results of endoscopic ultrasound, ERCP, surgery, or pathological examination were determined as standard reference, and distribution classifications were compared among all 3D MRCP protocols by McNemar’s test. Results: Acquisition times of Fast 3Dm and CS with PI with and without DLR were significantly shorter than those of PI with and without DLR (p < 0.05). Each MRCP sequence with DLR showed significantly higher SNRs and CNRs than those without DLR (p < 0.05). IPMN distribution accuracy of PI with and without DLR and Fast 3Dm with DLR was significantly higher than that of Fast 3Dm without DLR and CS with PI without DLR (p < 0.05). Conclusion: DLR is useful for improving image quality and IPMN evaluation capability on 3D MRCP obtained with PI, Fast 3Dm, or CS with PI. Moreover, Fast 3Dm and CS with PI may play as substitution to PI for MRCP in patients with IPMN. Key Points: • Mean examination times of multiple k-space data acquisitions for each TR and compressed sensing with parallel imaging were significantly shorter than that of parallel imaging (p < 0.0001). • When comparing image quality of 3D MRCPs with and without deep learning reconstruction, deep learning reconstruction significantly improved signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio (p < 0.05). • IPMN distribution accuracies of parallel imaging with and without deep learning reconstruction (with vs. without: 88.0% vs. 88.0%) and multiple k-space data acquisitions for each TR with deep learning reconstruction (86.0%) were significantly higher than those of others (p < 0.05).
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85131514418&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85131514418&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-022-08877-2
DO - 10.1007/s00330-022-08877-2
M3 - Article
C2 - 35687136
AN - SCOPUS:85131514418
SN - 0938-7994
VL - 32
SP - 6658
EP - 6667
JO - European Radiology
JF - European Radiology
IS - 10
ER -