Deep learning reconstruction of diffusion-weighted imaging with single-shot echo-planar imaging in endometrial cancer: a comparison with multi-shot echo-planar imaging.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Taewoo Heo, Nam Kyung Lee, Suk Kim, Seung Baek Hong, Dong Soo Suh, Jin You Kim, Ji Won Lee, Tae Un Kim
{"title":"Deep learning reconstruction of diffusion-weighted imaging with single-shot echo-planar imaging in endometrial cancer: a comparison with multi-shot echo-planar imaging.","authors":"Taewoo Heo, Nam Kyung Lee, Suk Kim, Seung Baek Hong, Dong Soo Suh, Jin You Kim, Ji Won Lee, Tae Un Kim","doi":"10.1007/s00261-025-04955-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy of deep learning reconstruction (DLR) in diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with single-shot echo-planar imaging (SSEPI) for endometrial cancer, compared to multiplexed sensitivity-encoding (MUSE) DWI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed 31 women with surgically confirmed endometrial cancer who underwent preoperative pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including DWI. Qualitative analysis including overall image quality, susceptibility artifacts, sharpness of the uterine edge, and lesion conspicuity were compared among conventional SSEPI (SSEPI-C), SSEPI with DLR (SSEPI-DL), and MUSE using the Friedman's test. Quantitative analysis including the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values, noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were also compared among three DWI sequences using the Friedman's test. In addition, the diagnostic accuracy for deep myometrial invasion was compared to three DWI sequences using Cochran's Q test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The scores of overall image quality, sharpness of the uterine edge, and lesion conspicuity in SSEPI-DL were higher than SSEPI-C (p < 0.001) with no significant difference compared to MUSE (p > 0.05). Noise in SSEPI-DL was lower than SSEPI-C (p < 0.001), with no significant difference compared to MUSE (p > 0.05). SNR and CNR in SSEPI-DL were also superior to SSEPI-C (p < 0.001), and comparable to MUSE (p > 0.05). The diagnostic accuracy for detecting deep myometrial invasion showed no significant difference among SSEPI-C, SSEPI-DL and MUSE (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DLR improves the image quality of DWI in endometrial cancer, demonstrating image quality equivalent to that of SSEPI-DL and MUSE. SSEPI-DL can be an alternative to MUSE in female pelvic MRI, with the benefit of significantly shortened scan time.</p>","PeriodicalId":7126,"journal":{"name":"Abdominal Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Abdominal Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-025-04955-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of deep learning reconstruction (DLR) in diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with single-shot echo-planar imaging (SSEPI) for endometrial cancer, compared to multiplexed sensitivity-encoding (MUSE) DWI.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 31 women with surgically confirmed endometrial cancer who underwent preoperative pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including DWI. Qualitative analysis including overall image quality, susceptibility artifacts, sharpness of the uterine edge, and lesion conspicuity were compared among conventional SSEPI (SSEPI-C), SSEPI with DLR (SSEPI-DL), and MUSE using the Friedman's test. Quantitative analysis including the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values, noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were also compared among three DWI sequences using the Friedman's test. In addition, the diagnostic accuracy for deep myometrial invasion was compared to three DWI sequences using Cochran's Q test.

Results: The scores of overall image quality, sharpness of the uterine edge, and lesion conspicuity in SSEPI-DL were higher than SSEPI-C (p < 0.001) with no significant difference compared to MUSE (p > 0.05). Noise in SSEPI-DL was lower than SSEPI-C (p < 0.001), with no significant difference compared to MUSE (p > 0.05). SNR and CNR in SSEPI-DL were also superior to SSEPI-C (p < 0.001), and comparable to MUSE (p > 0.05). The diagnostic accuracy for detecting deep myometrial invasion showed no significant difference among SSEPI-C, SSEPI-DL and MUSE (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: DLR improves the image quality of DWI in endometrial cancer, demonstrating image quality equivalent to that of SSEPI-DL and MUSE. SSEPI-DL can be an alternative to MUSE in female pelvic MRI, with the benefit of significantly shortened scan time.

子宫内膜癌扩散加权单次超声平面成像深度学习重建与多次超声平面成像比较
目的:评价深度学习重建(DLR)在子宫内膜癌扩散加权成像(DWI)单次回波平面成像(SSEPI)中的应用效果,并与多路灵敏度编码(MUSE) DWI进行比较。方法:回顾性分析31例手术确诊的子宫内膜癌患者术前行盆腔磁共振成像(MRI)检查,包括DWI检查。定性分析包括整体图像质量、敏感性伪影、子宫边缘锐度、病变显著性,比较常规SSEPI (SSEPI- c)、SSEPI联合DLR (SSEPI- dl)和MUSE使用Friedman’s检验。定量分析包括表观扩散系数(ADC)值、噪声、信噪比(SNR)和噪声对比比(CNR),并采用Friedman检验对三种DWI序列进行比较。此外,使用Cochran’s Q检验比较了三种DWI序列对深肌层浸润的诊断准确性。结果:SSEPI-DL的整体图像质量、子宫边缘清晰度、病变显著性评分均高于SSEPI-C (p < 0.05)。SSEPI-DL的噪声低于SSEPI-C (p < 0.05)。SSEPI-DL的SNR和CNR也优于SSEPI-C (p 0.05)。SSEPI-C、SSEPI-DL和MUSE对深部肌层浸润的诊断准确率差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。结论:DLR提高了子宫内膜癌DWI的图像质量,其图像质量与SSEPI-DL和MUSE相当。SSEPI-DL在女性骨盆MRI中可替代MUSE,其优点是扫描时间明显缩短。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Abdominal Radiology
Abdominal Radiology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
334
期刊介绍: Abdominal Radiology seeks to meet the professional needs of the abdominal radiologist by publishing clinically pertinent original, review and practice related articles on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts and abdominal interventional and radiologic procedures. Case reports are generally not accepted unless they are the first report of a new disease or condition, or part of a special solicited section. Reasons to Publish Your Article in Abdominal Radiology: · Official journal of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) · Published in Cooperation with: European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) Asian Society of Abdominal Radiology (ASAR) · Efficient handling and Expeditious review · Author feedback is provided in a mentoring style · Global readership · Readers can earn CME credits
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信