TY - JOUR
T1 - High-resolution deep learning reconstruction for coronary CTA
T2 - compared efficacy of stenosis evaluation with other methods at in vitro and in vivo studies
AU - Matsuyama, Takahiro
AU - Nagata, Hiroyuki
AU - Ozawa, Yoshiyuki
AU - Ito, Yuya
AU - Kimata, Hirona
AU - Fujii, Kenji
AU - Akino, Naruomi
AU - Ueda, Takahiro
AU - Nomura, Masahiko
AU - Yoshikawa, Takeshi
AU - Takenaka, Daisuke
AU - Kawai, Hideki
AU - Sarai, Masayoshi
AU - Izawa, Hideo
AU - Ohno, Yoshiharu
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology 2025.
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - Objective: To directly compare coronary arterial stenosis evaluations by hybrid-type iterative reconstruction (IR), model-based IR (MBIR), deep learning reconstruction (DLR), and high-resolution deep learning reconstruction (HR-DLR) on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in both in vitro and in vivo studies. Materials and methods: For the in vitro study, a total of three-vessel tube phantoms with diameters of 3 mm, 4 mm, and 5 mm and with simulated non-calcified stepped stenosis plaques with degrees of 0%, 25%, 50%, and 75% stenosis were scanned with area-detector CT (ADCT) and ultra-high-resolution CT (UHR-CT). Then, ADCT data were reconstructed using all methods, although UHR-CT data were reconstructed with hybrid-type IR, MBIR, and DLR. For the in vivo study, patients who had undergone CCTA at ADCT were retrospectively selected, and each CCTA data set was reconstructed with all methods. To compare the image noise and measurement accuracy at each of the stenosis levels, image noise, and inner diameter were evaluated and statistically compared. To determine the effect of HR-DLR on CAD-RADS evaluation accuracy, the accuracy of CAD-RADS categorization of all CCTAs was compared by using McNemar’s test. Results: The image noise of HR-DLR was significantly lower than that of others on ADCT and UHR-CT (p < 0.0001). At a 50% and 75% stenosis level for each phantom, hybrid-type IR showed a significantly larger mean difference on ADCT than did others (p < 0.05). At in vivo study, 31 patients were included. Accuracy on HR-DLR was significantly higher than that on hybrid-type IR, MBIR, or DLR (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: HR-DLR is potentially superior for coronary arterial stenosis evaluations to hybrid-type IR, MBIR, or DLR shown on CCTA. Key Points: Question How do coronary arterial stenosis evaluations by hybrid-type IR, MBIR, DLR, and HR-DLR compare to coronary CT angiography? Findings HR-DLR showed significantly lower image noise and more accurate coronary artery disease reporting and data system (CAD-RADS) evaluation than others. Clinical relevance HR-DLR is potentially superior to other reconstruction methods for coronary arterial stenosis evaluations, as demonstrated by coronary CT angiography results on ADCT and as shown in both in vitro and in vivo studies.
AB - Objective: To directly compare coronary arterial stenosis evaluations by hybrid-type iterative reconstruction (IR), model-based IR (MBIR), deep learning reconstruction (DLR), and high-resolution deep learning reconstruction (HR-DLR) on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in both in vitro and in vivo studies. Materials and methods: For the in vitro study, a total of three-vessel tube phantoms with diameters of 3 mm, 4 mm, and 5 mm and with simulated non-calcified stepped stenosis plaques with degrees of 0%, 25%, 50%, and 75% stenosis were scanned with area-detector CT (ADCT) and ultra-high-resolution CT (UHR-CT). Then, ADCT data were reconstructed using all methods, although UHR-CT data were reconstructed with hybrid-type IR, MBIR, and DLR. For the in vivo study, patients who had undergone CCTA at ADCT were retrospectively selected, and each CCTA data set was reconstructed with all methods. To compare the image noise and measurement accuracy at each of the stenosis levels, image noise, and inner diameter were evaluated and statistically compared. To determine the effect of HR-DLR on CAD-RADS evaluation accuracy, the accuracy of CAD-RADS categorization of all CCTAs was compared by using McNemar’s test. Results: The image noise of HR-DLR was significantly lower than that of others on ADCT and UHR-CT (p < 0.0001). At a 50% and 75% stenosis level for each phantom, hybrid-type IR showed a significantly larger mean difference on ADCT than did others (p < 0.05). At in vivo study, 31 patients were included. Accuracy on HR-DLR was significantly higher than that on hybrid-type IR, MBIR, or DLR (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: HR-DLR is potentially superior for coronary arterial stenosis evaluations to hybrid-type IR, MBIR, or DLR shown on CCTA. Key Points: Question How do coronary arterial stenosis evaluations by hybrid-type IR, MBIR, DLR, and HR-DLR compare to coronary CT angiography? Findings HR-DLR showed significantly lower image noise and more accurate coronary artery disease reporting and data system (CAD-RADS) evaluation than others. Clinical relevance HR-DLR is potentially superior to other reconstruction methods for coronary arterial stenosis evaluations, as demonstrated by coronary CT angiography results on ADCT and as shown in both in vitro and in vivo studies.
KW - Computed tomography angiography
KW - Coronary vessels
KW - Deep learning
KW - Multidetector computed tomography
KW - Phantoms (Imaging)
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85218821183&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85218821183&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-025-11376-9
DO - 10.1007/s00330-025-11376-9
M3 - Article
C2 - 39903239
AN - SCOPUS:85218821183
SN - 0938-7994
JO - European Radiology
JF - European Radiology
M1 - e221257
ER -