Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Anesthesiology Cardiology Dermatology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology General Medicine Geriatrics Hematology Infectious Diseases Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Obstetrics and Gynecology Oncology Ophthalmology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery Urology
Congress Coverage
ASH 2024 Annual Meeting 2024 ESMO Congress 2024 ERS Congress 2024 EASD Congress 2024 ESC Congress 2024 EAN Congress 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on adolescent vaping

Growing numbers of young people are using e-cigarettes, despite warnings of respiratory effects and addiction. How can doctors tackle the epidemic, and what health effects should you prepare to manage in your clinics?

Watch the on-demand webinar
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in:

Open Access 09-05-2024 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence

Assessing deep learning reconstruction for faster prostate MRI: visual vs. diagnostic performance metrics

Authors: Quintin van Lohuizen, Christian Roest, Frank F. J. Simonis, Stefan J. Fransen, Thomas C. Kwee, Derya Yakar, Henkjan Huisman

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 11/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

Deep learning (DL) MRI reconstruction enables fast scan acquisition with good visual quality, but the diagnostic impact is often not assessed because of large reader study requirements. This study used existing diagnostic DL to assess the diagnostic quality of reconstructed images.

Materials and methods

A retrospective multisite study of 1535 patients assessed biparametric prostate MRI between 2016 and 2020. Likely clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) lesions (PI-RADS \(\ge\) 4) were delineated by expert radiologists. T2-weighted scans were retrospectively undersampled, simulating accelerated protocols. DL reconstruction (DLRecon) and diagnostic DL detection (DLDetect) were developed. The effect on the partial area under (pAUC), the Free-Response Operating Characteristic (FROC) curve, and the structural similarity (SSIM) were compared as metrics for diagnostic and visual quality, respectively. DLDetect was validated with a reader concordance analysis. Statistical analysis included Wilcoxon, permutation, and Cohen’s kappa tests for visual quality, diagnostic performance, and reader concordance.

Results

DLRecon improved visual quality at 4- and 8-fold (R4, R8) subsampling rates, with SSIM (range: −1 to 1) improved to 0.78 ± 0.02 (p < 0.001) and 0.67 ± 0.03 (p < 0.001) from 0.68 ± 0.03 and 0.51 ± 0.03, respectively. However, diagnostic performance at R4 showed a pAUC FROC of 1.33 (CI 1.28–1.39) for DL and 1.29 (CI 1.23–1.35) for naive reconstructions, both significantly lower than fully sampled pAUC of 1.58 (DL: p = 0.024, naïve: p = 0.02). Similar trends were noted for R8.

Conclusion

DL reconstruction produces visually appealing images but may reduce diagnostic accuracy. Incorporating diagnostic AI into the assessment framework offers a clinically relevant metric essential for adopting reconstruction models into clinical practice.

Clinical relevance statement

In clinical settings, caution is warranted when using DL reconstruction for MRI scans. While it recovered visual quality, it failed to match the prostate cancer detection rates observed in scans not subjected to acceleration and DL reconstruction.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Larson EB (2008) Rising use of diagnostic medical imaging in a large integrated health system. Health Aff (Millwood) 27:1491–1502CrossRefPubMed
2.
Nam RK, Wallis CJD, Stojcic-Bendavid J et al (2016) A pilot study to evaluate the role of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer screening in the general population. J Urol 196:361–366CrossRefPubMed
3.
Mason A, Rioux J, Clarke SE et al (2020) Comparison of objective image quality metrics to expert radiologists’ scoring of diagnostic quality of MR images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 39:1064–1072CrossRefPubMed
4.
Muckley MJ, Riemenschneider B, Radmanesh A et al (2021) Results of the 2020 fastMRI challenge for machine learning MR image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 40:2306–2317CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Stabile A, Giganti F, Kasivisvanathan V et al (2020) Factors influencing variability in the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer: a systematic literature review. Eur Urol Oncol 3:145–167CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40CrossRefPubMed
7.
Hosseinzadeh M, Saha A, Brand P, Slootweg I, de Rooij M, Huisman H (2022) Deep learning–assisted prostate cancer detection on bi-parametric MRI: minimum training data size requirements and effect of prior knowledge. Eur Radiol 32:2224–2234CrossRefPubMed
8.
Schelb P, Kohl S, Radtke JP et al (2019) Classification of cancer at prostate MRI: deep learning versus clinical PI-RADS assessment. Radiology 293:607–617CrossRefPubMed
9.
Saha A, Hosseinzadeh M, Huisman H (2021) End-to-end prostate cancer detection in bpMRI via 3D CNNs: effects of attention mechanisms, clinical priori and decoupled false positive reduction. Med Image Anal 73:102155
10.
Kojima S, Shinohara H, Hashimoto T, Suzuki S (2018) Undersampling patterns in k-space for compressed sensing MRI using two-dimensional Cartesian sampling. Radiol Phys Technol 11:303–319CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Hu J, Shen L, Sun G (2018) Squeeze-and-Excitation Networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, IEEE Computer Society, Salt Lake City, 7132–7141
13.
McKinney SM, Sieniek M, Godbole V et al (2020) International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature 577:89–94CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
Yiasemis G, Sonke JJ, Sanchez C, Teuwen J (2022) Recurrent variational network: a deep learning inverse problem solver applied to the task of accelerated MRI reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, IEEE Computer Society, 722–731 2022
16.
Lønning K, Putzky P, Caan M, Welling M (2019) Recurrent inference machines for accelerated MRI reconstruction. Med Image Anal. 53:64–78
17.
Sriram A, Zbontar J, Defazio A et al (2020) End-to-end variational networks for accelerated MRI reconstruction. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, p 64–73
18.
19.
Wang S, Su Z, Ying L et al (2016) Accelerating magnetic resonance imaging via deep learning. Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging 2016:514–517
20.
Schlemper J, Caballero J, Hajnal JV, Price AN, Rueckert D (2018) A deep cascade of convolutional neural networks for dynamic MR image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 37:491–503CrossRefPubMed
21.
Lee D, Yoo J, Tak S, Ye JC (2018) Deep residual learning for accelerated MRI using magnitude and phase networks. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 65:1985–1995CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
Hyun CM, Kim HP, Lee SM, Lee S, Seo JK (2018) Deep learning for undersampled MRI reconstruction. Phys Med Biol 63:135007
24.
Aggarwal R, Sounderajah V, Martin G et al (2021) Diagnostic accuracy of deep learning in medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. NPJ Digit Med 4:65
25.
Lång K, Josefsson V, Larsson AM et al (2023) Artificial intelligence-supported screen reading versus standard double reading in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a clinical safety analysis of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study. Lancet Oncol 24:936–944
Metadata
Title
Assessing deep learning reconstruction for faster prostate MRI: visual vs. diagnostic performance metrics
Authors
Quintin van Lohuizen
Christian Roest
Frank F. J. Simonis
Stefan J. Fransen
Thomas C. Kwee
Derya Yakar
Henkjan Huisman
Publication date
09-05-2024
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 11/2024
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10771-y

Other articles of this Issue 11/2024

Impact of pulmonary artery intramural hematoma on patients with acute type A aortic dissection

Ferumoxytol-enhanced MR venography for mapping lower-extremity venous networks and evaluating varicose veins in patients with diabetes

Managing expectations and challenges of AI in radiology

PI-QUAL version 2: the urologist’s perspective

Coronary computed tomography angiography-derived total coronary plaque burden associated with subsequent cardiovascular outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention

Safety, efficacy, and feasibility of percutaneous transhepatic endoscopic holmium laser lithotripsy for bile duct stones