Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 24, 2026
A Murine Tail Lymphedema Model
Published on: February 10, 2021
MR Lymphangiography for Diagnosis of Lower Extremity Lymphedema: Suppressing Venous Signal Interference Using Deep
Jian Ma1, Xiuru Gong1, Jianqing Zhang2
1Department of Radiology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, No. 150 Jimo Rd, Shanghai 200120, China.
None:
Background Venous signal can obscure lymphatic structures, leading to misinterpretation and diagnostic errors in MR lymphangiography for lower extremity lymphedema (LEL). Purpose To develop and evaluate LympClear for venous signal suppression in MR lymphangiography. Materials and Methods Retrospective and prospective data from MR lymphangiography from four medical centers were collected (July 2007-March 2024) for individuals with LEL. Three radiologists annotated venous signal intensity on images, and consensus labels served as the reference standard for training and evaluation. LympClear, based on the nnU-Net framework, was trained with a brightness-matching technique to suppress venous signal intensity. Dynamic images were generated to depict contrast agent flow, and a grading system for lymphatic morphologic features was introduced. Model performance and diagnostic impact were evaluated using quantitative and reader-based analyses, including paired t tests, χ2 tests, κ statistics, and linear mixed-effects models. Results A total of 1022 individuals with LEL (6162 dynamic scans) (mean age, 49.3 years ± 14.0 [SD]; 560 female individuals) were included in the training, validation, prospective internal test, and three external test sets. LympClear had a Dice score of 0.94 for venous segmentation. Compared with original images, venous-suppressed images showed improved image quality, venous signal suppression score, and lymphatic reflux visibility (all 10-point scales; mean, 7.5 ± 0.9 vs 6.7 ± 1.1, 8.8 ± 0.7 vs 5.8 ± 1.2, and 8.3 ± 1.0 vs 6.0 ± 1.3, respectively; all P < .001) and improved reading efficiency (mean, 3.6 minutes ± 1.7 vs 16.7 minutes ± 3.3; P < .001). Of 241 reference-standard reflux regions identified in 75 evaluated cases, readers identified 36 (14.9%) more reflux regions on venous-suppressed images. At the case level, the missed detection rate decreased from 11 of 75 (14.7%) to five of 75 (6.7%). Dynamic images enhanced contrast agent flow visibility compared with static images (mean, 8.68 ± 0.54 vs 6.85 ± 0.69; P < .001), and lymphatic morphologic grade was associated with etiology. Conclusion LympClear suppressed venous signal at MR lymphangiography and improved image diagnostic quality in individuals with LEL. © RSNA, 2026 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Nezami and Habibollahi in this issue.
Related Concept Videos
01:20Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
01:15Veins of Lower Limbs
Formed by the union of the medial and lateral plantar veins, the posterior tibial vein, rising through the calf muscle, assimilates the fibular vein. The anterior tibial vein, a superior extension of the foot's dorsalis pedis vein, merges with the posterior tibial vein at the knee,...
01:26Varicose Veins II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care