Reducing Contrast Agent Dose in Cardiovascular MR Angiography with Deep Learning.
MR angiography
contrast agent
deep learning
low-dose MRA
Journal
Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI
ISSN: 1522-2586
Titre abrégé: J Magn Reson Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9105850
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
revised:
05
02
2021
received:
20
12
2020
accepted:
09
02
2021
pubmed:
24
2
2021
medline:
14
8
2021
entrez:
23
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) is used to assess various cardiovascular conditions. However, gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) carry a risk of dose-related adverse effects. To develop a deep learning method to reduce GBCA dose by 80%. Retrospective and prospective. A total of 1157 retrospective and 40 prospective congenital heart disease patients for training/validation and testing, respectively. A 1.5 T, T1-weighted three-dimensional (3D) gradient echo. A neural network was trained to enhance low-dose (LD) 3D MRA using retrospective synthetic data and tested with prospective LD data. Image quality for LD (LD-MRA), enhanced LD (ELD-MRA), and high-dose (HD-MRA) was assessed in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and a quantitative measure of edge sharpness and scored for perceptual sharpness and contrast on a 1-5 scale. Diagnostic confidence was assessed on a 1-3 scale. LD- and ELD-MRA were assessed against HD-MRA for sensitivity/specificity and agreement of vessel diameter measurements (aorta and pulmonary arteries). SNR, CNR, edge sharpness, and vessel diameters were compared between LD-, ELD-, and HD-MRA using one-way repeated measures analysis of variance with post-hoc t-tests. Perceptual quality and diagnostic confidence were compared using Friedman's test with post-hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Sensitivity/specificity was compared using McNemar's test. Agreement of vessel diameters was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis. SNR, CNR, edge sharpness, perceptual sharpness, and perceptual contrast were lower (P < 0.05) for LD-MRA compared to ELD-MRA and HD-MRA. SNR, CNR, edge sharpness, and perceptual contrast were comparable between ELD and HD-MRA, but perceptual sharpness was significantly lower. Sensitivity/specificity was 0.824/0.921 for LD-MRA and 0.882/0.960 for ELD-MRA. Diagnostic confidence was 2.72, 2.85, and 2.92 for LD, ELD, and HD-MRA, respectively (P Deep learning can improve contrast in LD cardiovascular MRA. 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) is used to assess various cardiovascular conditions. However, gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) carry a risk of dose-related adverse effects.
PURPOSE
To develop a deep learning method to reduce GBCA dose by 80%.
STUDY TYPE
Retrospective and prospective.
POPULATION
A total of 1157 retrospective and 40 prospective congenital heart disease patients for training/validation and testing, respectively.
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE
A 1.5 T, T1-weighted three-dimensional (3D) gradient echo.
ASSESSMENT
A neural network was trained to enhance low-dose (LD) 3D MRA using retrospective synthetic data and tested with prospective LD data. Image quality for LD (LD-MRA), enhanced LD (ELD-MRA), and high-dose (HD-MRA) was assessed in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and a quantitative measure of edge sharpness and scored for perceptual sharpness and contrast on a 1-5 scale. Diagnostic confidence was assessed on a 1-3 scale. LD- and ELD-MRA were assessed against HD-MRA for sensitivity/specificity and agreement of vessel diameter measurements (aorta and pulmonary arteries).
STATISTICAL TESTS
SNR, CNR, edge sharpness, and vessel diameters were compared between LD-, ELD-, and HD-MRA using one-way repeated measures analysis of variance with post-hoc t-tests. Perceptual quality and diagnostic confidence were compared using Friedman's test with post-hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Sensitivity/specificity was compared using McNemar's test. Agreement of vessel diameters was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis.
RESULTS
SNR, CNR, edge sharpness, perceptual sharpness, and perceptual contrast were lower (P < 0.05) for LD-MRA compared to ELD-MRA and HD-MRA. SNR, CNR, edge sharpness, and perceptual contrast were comparable between ELD and HD-MRA, but perceptual sharpness was significantly lower. Sensitivity/specificity was 0.824/0.921 for LD-MRA and 0.882/0.960 for ELD-MRA. Diagnostic confidence was 2.72, 2.85, and 2.92 for LD, ELD, and HD-MRA, respectively (P
DATA CONCLUSION
Deep learning can improve contrast in LD cardiovascular MRA.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE LEVEL
2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33619859
doi: 10.1002/jmri.27573
pmc: PMC9681557
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Reducing Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
795-805Subventions
Organisme : Kidney Research UK
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : NH/18/1/33511
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Heart Research UK
Organisme : UK Research and Innovation
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/S032290/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Références
J Am Coll Radiol. 2016 Mar;13(3):237-41
pubmed: 26810815
Magn Reson Med. 2016 May;75(5):2107-11
pubmed: 26890830
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Aug;48(2):330-340
pubmed: 29437269
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Jan;25(1):13-25
pubmed: 17154188
IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2017 Apr;39(4):640-651
pubmed: 27244717
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2021 Aug;54(2):357-371
pubmed: 32830874
Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2003 Oct;14(5):386-402
pubmed: 14625467
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Jul;16(7):564-570
pubmed: 28653648
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Dec;30(6):1259-67
pubmed: 19938038
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Jan;33(1):71-6
pubmed: 21182123
Radiology. 2011 Jul;260(1):79-87
pubmed: 21415248
Kidney Int. 2007 Aug;72(3):260-4
pubmed: 17507905
Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Dec;34(10):1346-1350
pubmed: 27613998
Invest Radiol. 2019 Oct;54(10):653-660
pubmed: 31261293
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Apr;41(4):884-98
pubmed: 24974785
Eur J Radiol. 2011 Oct;80(1):2-8
pubmed: 21458187
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Jul;38(7):1383-1390
pubmed: 28473338
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Sep;46(3):919-923
pubmed: 28160356
Radiology. 2015 Jun;275(3):772-82
pubmed: 25742194
Magn Reson Med. 2019 Feb;81(2):1143-1156
pubmed: 30194880
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Jun 30;7:105
pubmed: 32714943
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2020 Nov 9;22(1):76
pubmed: 33161900
Radiology. 2007 Mar;242(3):647-9
pubmed: 17213364
Eur Radiol. 1997;7(7):981-9
pubmed: 9265659
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2020 Aug 3;22(1):56
pubmed: 32753047