Premium
View‐Sharing Artifact Reduction With Retrospective Compressed Sensing Reconstruction in the Context of Contrast‐Enhanced Liver MRI for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) Screening
Author(s) -
Shaikh Jamil,
Stoddard Paul B.,
Levine Evan G.,
Roh Albert T.,
Saranathan Manojkumar,
Chang Stephanie T.,
Muelly Michael C.,
Hargreaves Brian A.,
Vasanawala Shreyas S.,
Loening Andreas M.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.26276
Subject(s) - wilcoxon signed rank test , context (archaeology) , medicine , image quality , artifact (error) , undersampling , radiology , hepatocellular carcinoma , nuclear medicine , mcnemar's test , iterative reconstruction , compressed sensing , computer science , artificial intelligence , mathematics , statistics , image (mathematics) , paleontology , biology , mann–whitney u test
Background View‐sharing (VS) increases spatiotemporal resolution in dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) MRI by sharing high‐frequency k ‐space data across temporal phases. This temporal sharing results in respiratory motion within any phase to propagate artifacts across all shared phases. Compressed sensing (CS) eliminates the need for VS by recovering missing k ‐space data from pseudorandom undersampling, reducing temporal blurring while maintaining spatial resolution. Purpose To evaluate a CS reconstruction algorithm on undersampled DCE‐MRI data for image quality and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) detection. Study Type Retrospective. Subjects Fifty consecutive patients undergoing MRI for HCC screening (29 males, 21 females, 52–72 years). Field Strength/Sequence 3.0T MRI. Multiphase 3D‐SPGR T 1 ‐weighted sequence undersampled in arterial phases with a complementary Poisson disc sampling pattern reconstructed with VS and CS algorithms. Assessment VS and CS reconstructions evaluated by blinded assessments of image quality and anatomic delineation on Likert scales (1–4 and 1–5, respectively), and HCC detection by OPTN/UNOS criteria including a diagnostic confidence score (1–5). Blinded side‐by‐side reconstruction comparisons for lesion depiction and overall series preference (–3–3). Statistical Analysis Two‐tailed Wilcoxon signed rank tests for paired nonparametric analyses with Bonferroni‐Holm multiple‐comparison corrections. McNemar's test for differences in lesion detection frequency and transplantation eligibility. Results CS compared with VS demonstrated significantly improved contrast (mean 3.6 vs. 2.9, P < 0.0001) and less motion artifact (mean 3.6 vs. 3.2, P = 0.006). CS compared with VS demonstrated significantly improved delineations of liver margin (mean 4.5 vs. 3.8, P = 0.0002), portal veins (mean 4.5 vs. 3.7, P < 0.0001), and hepatic veins (mean 4.6 vs. 3.5, P < 0.0001), but significantly decreased delineation of hepatic arteries (mean 3.2 vs. 3.7, P = 0.004). No significant differences were seen in the other assessments. Data Conclusion Applying a CS reconstruction to data acquired for a VS reconstruction significantly reduces motion artifacts in a clinical DCE protocol for HCC screening. Level of Evidence : 3 Technical Efficacy : Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:984–993.