Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 20, 2025
Three-Dimensional Phase Resolved Functional Lung Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Published on: June 21, 2024
Comparison of utility of deep learning reconstruction on 3D MRCPs obtained with three different k-space data
Takahiro Matsuyama1, Yoshiharu Ohno2,3, Kaori Yamamoto4
1Department of Radiology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan.
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).
