Faculty Bibliography

This work aimed to develop a modified stack-of-stars golden-angle radial sampling scheme with variable-density acceleration along the slice (kz) dimension (referred to as VD-stack-of-stars) and to test this new sampling trajectory with multi-coil compressed sensing reconstruction for rapid motion-robust 3D liver MRI. VD-stack-of-stars sampling implements additional variable-density undersampling along the kz dimension, so that slice resolution (or volumetric coverage) can be increased without prolonging scan time. The new sampling trajectory (with increased slice resolution) was compared with standard stack-of-stars sampling with fully sampled kz (with standard slice resolution) in both non-contrast-enhanced free-breathing liver MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) of the liver in volunteers. For both sampling trajectories, respiratory motion was extracted from the acquired radial data, and images were reconstructed using motion-compensated (respiratory-resolved or respiratory-weighted) dynamic radial compressed sensing reconstruction techniques. Qualitative image quality assessment (visual assessment by experienced radiologists) and quantitative analysis (as a metric of image sharpness) were performed to compare images acquired using the new and standard stack-of-stars sampling trajectories. Compared to standard stack-of-stars sampling, both non-contrast-enhanced and DCE liver MR images acquired with VD-stack-of-stars sampling presented improved overall image quality, sharper liver edges and increased hepatic vessel clarity in all image planes. The results have suggested that the proposed VD-stack-of-stars sampling scheme can achieve improved performance (increased slice resolution or volumetric coverage with better image quality) over standard stack-of-stars sampling in free-breathing DCE-MRI without increasing scan time. The reformatted coronal and sagittal images with better slice resolution may provide added clinical value.

Endometriosis is the presence of ectopic endometrial glands outside of the uterus. MR imaging is particularly useful for characterizing deep infiltrating endometriosis but can also be useful in characterizing endometriomas and hematosalpinges, characterizing broad ligament deposits, assessing for endometriosis-associated malignancy, and differentiating malignancy from decidualized endometriomas. Masses and cysts with hemorrhagic or proteinaceous contents can sometimes be difficult to distinguish from endometriomas. Imaging protocols should include pre-contrast T1-weighted imaging with fat saturation, T2-weighted imaging without fat saturation, opposed- and in-phase or Dixon imaging, administration of contrast media, and subtraction imaging.

BACKGROUND:Demand for prostate MRI is increasing, but scan times remain long even in abbreviated biparametric MRIs (bpMRI). Deep learning can be leveraged to accelerate T2-weighted imaging (T2WI). PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To compare conventional bpMRIs (CL-bpMRI) with bpMRIs including a deep learning-accelerated T2WI (DL-bpMRI) in diagnosing prostate cancer. STUDY TYPE/METHODS:Retrospective. POPULATION/METHODS:Eighty consecutive men, mean age 66 years (47-84) with suspected prostate cancer or prostate cancer on active surveillance who had a prostate MRI from December 28, 2020 to April 28, 2021 were included. Follow-up included prostate biopsy or stability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for 1 year. FIELD STRENGTH AND SEQUENCES/UNASSIGNED:. ASSESSMENT/RESULTS:CL-bpMRI and DL-bpMRI including the same conventional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) were presented to three radiologists (blinded to acquisition method) and to a deep learning computer-assisted detection algorithm (DL-CAD). The readers evaluated image quality using a 4-point Likert scale (1 = nondiagnostic, 4 = excellent) and graded lesions using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1. DL-CAD identified and assigned lesions of PI-RADS 3 or greater. STATISTICAL TESTS/METHODS:Quality metrics were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank test, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were compared using Delong's test. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:P = 0.05. RESULTS:Eighty men were included (age: 66 ± 9 years; 17/80 clinically significant prostate cancer). Overall image quality results by the three readers (CL-T2, DL-T2) are reader 1: 3.72 ± 0.53, 3.89 ± 0.39 (P = 0.99); reader 2: 3.33 ± 0.82, 3.31 ± 0.74 (P = 0.49); reader 3: 3.67 ± 0.63, 3.51 ± 0.62. In the patient-based analysis, the reader results of AUC are (CL-bpMRI, DL-bpMRI): reader 1: 0.77, 0.78 (P = 0.98), reader 2: 0.65, 0.66 (P = 0.99), reader 3: 0.57, 0.60 (P = 0.52). Diagnostic statistics from DL-CAD (CL-bpMRI, DL-bpMRI) are sensitivity (0.71, 0.71, P = 1.00), specificity (0.59, 0.44, P = 0.05), positive predictive value (0.23, 0.24, P = 0.25), negative predictive value (0.88, 0.88, P = 0.48). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Deep learning-accelerated T2-weighted imaging may potentially be used to decrease acquisition time for bpMRI. EVIDENCE LEVEL/METHODS:3. TECHNICAL EFFICACY/UNASSIGNED:Stage 2.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of a deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis (DL-CAD) system on experienced and less-experienced radiologists in reading prostate mpMRI. METHODS:In this retrospective, multi-reader multi-case study, a consecutive set of 184 patients examined between 01/2018 and 08/2019 were enrolled. Ground truth was combined targeted and 12-core systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. Four radiologists, two experienced and two less-experienced, evaluated each case twice, once without (DL-CAD-) and once assisted by DL-CAD (DL-CAD+). ROC analysis, sensitivities, specificities, PPV and NPV were calculated to compare the diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) between the two groups (DL-CAD- vs. DL-CAD+). Spearman's correlation coefficients were evaluated to assess the relationship between PI-RADS category and Gleason score (GS). Also, the median reading times were compared for the two reading groups. RESULTS:In total, 172 patients were included in the final analysis. With DL-CAD assistance, the overall AUC of the less-experienced radiologists increased significantly from 0.66 to 0.80 (p = 0.001; cutoff ISUP GG ≥ 1) and from 0.68 to 0.80 (p = 0.002; cutoff ISUP GG ≥ 2). Experienced radiologists showed an AUC increase from 0.81 to 0.86 (p = 0.146; cutoff ISUP GG ≥ 1) and from 0.81 to 0.84 (p = 0.433; cutoff ISUP GG ≥ 2). Furthermore, the correlation between PI-RADS category and GS improved significantly in the DL-CAD + group (0.45 vs. 0.57; p = 0.03), while the median reading time was reduced from 157 to 150 s (p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS:DL-CAD assistance increased the mean detection performance, with the most significant benefit for the less-experienced radiologist; with the help of DL-CAD less-experienced radiologists reached performances comparable to that of experienced radiologists. KEY POINTS/CONCLUSIONS:• DL-CAD used as a concurrent reading aid helps radiologists to distinguish between benign and cancerous lesions in prostate MRI. • With the help of DL-CAD, less-experienced radiologists may achieve detection performances comparable to that of experienced radiologists. • DL-CAD assistance increases the correlation between PI-RADS category and cancer grade.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Fat-suppressed T2-weighted imaging (T2-FS) requires a long scan time and can be wrought with motion artifacts, urging the development of a shorter and more motion robust sequence. We compare the image quality of a single-shot T2-weighted MRI prototype with deep-learning-based image reconstruction (DL HASTE-FS) with a standard T2-FS sequence for 3 T liver MRI. METHODS:41 consecutive patients with 3 T abdominal MRI examinations including standard T2-FS and DL HASTE-FS, between 5/6/2020 and 11/23/2020, comprised the study cohort. Three radiologists independently reviewed images using a 5-point Likert scale for artifact and image quality measures, while also assessing for liver lesions. RESULTS:DL HASTE-FS acquisition time was 54.93 ± 16.69, significantly (p < .001) shorter than standard T2-FS (114.00 ± 32.98 s). DL HASTE-FS received significantly higher scores for sharpness of liver margin (4.3 vs 3.3; p < .001), hepatic vessel margin (4.2 vs 3.3; p < .001), pancreatic duct margin (4.0 vs 1.9; p < .001); in-plane (4.0 vs 3.2; p < .001) and through-plane (3.9 vs 3.4; p < .001) motion artifacts; other ghosting artifacts (4.3 vs 2.9; p < .001); and overall image quality (4.0 vs 2.9; p < .001), in addition to receiving a higher score for homogeneity of fat suppression (3.7 vs 3.4; p = .04) and liver-fat contrast (p = .03). For liver lesions, DL HASTE-FS received significantly higher scores for sharpness of lesion margin (4.4 vs 3.7; p = .03). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Novel single-shot T2-weighted MRI with deep-learning-based image reconstruction demonstrated superior image quality compared with the standard T2-FS sequence for 3 T liver MRI, while being acquired in less than half the time.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:F-Fluciclovine) PET/MRI informs the decision to perform an early repeat biopsy of PI-RADS 4/5 region of interest (ROI) exhibiting no clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on initial biopsy. METHODS:This prospective study enrolled men with at least one PI-RADS 4/5 ROI on multi-parametric MRI and no csPCa on prior biopsy defined as Gleason grade group (GGG) > 1. All men underwent an Axumin PET/MRI and only-persistent PI-RADS > 2 ROI were advised to undergo a repeat biopsy. A PET cancer suspicion score (PETCSS) was internally developed to stratify PET avid lesions according to their suspicion of harboring csPCa. The sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the PETCSS for predicting csPCa were assessed. Relative risk was calculated to analyze the association of baseline variables with csPCa on repeat biopsy. RESULTS:Thirty-eight ROI on 36 enrolled men were analyzed. Fourteen (36.8%) were downgraded to PI-RADS 1/2 and were not subjected to repeat biopsy. Thirteen (92.9%) of these downgraded scans also exhibited low-risk PETCSS. Overall, 18/22 (81.2%) subjects underwent a repeat per protocol biopsy. Of the 20 ROI subjected to repeat biopsy, eight (40%) were found to harbour csPCa. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the PETCSS were 50, 50, 40, and 60%, respectively. No predictor of csPCa was found in the risk analysis. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our pilot study showed that both MRI and PET sequences have limited performance for identifying those persistently suspicious PI-RADS 4/5 ROI that are found to harbor csPCa on repeat biopsy.

BACKGROUND:Early diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) can be curative; however, prostate-specific antigen is a suboptimal screening test for clinically significant PCa. While prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has demonstrated value for the diagnosis of PCa, the acquisition time is too long for a first-line screening modality. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To accelerate prostate MRI exams, utilizing a variational network (VN) for image reconstruction. STUDY TYPE/METHODS:Retrospective. SUBJECTS/METHODS:One hundred and thirteen subjects (train/val/test: 70/13/30) undergoing prostate MRI. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE/UNASSIGNED:3.0 T; a T2 turbo spin echo (TSE) T2-weighted image (T2WI) sequence in axial and coronal planes, and axial echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). ASSESSMENT/RESULTS:, and apparent diffusion coefficient map-according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v2.1), for both VN and standard reconstructions. Accuracy of PI-RADS ≥3 for clinically significant cancer was computed. Projected scan time of the retrospectively under-sampled biparametric exam was also computed. STATISTICAL TESTS/UNASSIGNED:One-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for comparison of image quality. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for lesion detection and grading. Generalized estimating equation with cluster effect was used to compare differences between standard and VN bp-MRI. A P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS:(Reader 1: 3.20 ± 0.70 (Standard), 3.40 ± 0.75 (VN) P = 0.98; Reader 2: 2.85 ± 0.81 (Standard), 3.00 ± 0.79 (VN) P = 0.93; Reader 3: 4.45 ± 0.72 (Standard), 4.05 ± 0.69 (VN) P = 0.02; Reader 4: 4.50 ± 0.69 (Standard), 4.45 ± 0.76 (VN) P = 0.50). In the lesion evaluation study, there was no significant difference in the number of PI-RADS ≥3 lesions identified on standard vs. VN bp-MRI (P = 0.92, 0.59, 0.87) with similar sensitivity and specificity for clinically significant cancer. The average scan time of the standard clinical biparametric exam was 11.8 minutes, and this was projected to be 3.2 minutes for the accelerated exam. DATA CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Diagnostic accelerated biparametric prostate MRI exams can be performed using deep learning methods in <4 minutes, potentially enabling rapid screening prostate MRI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of the study was to compare the distribution of Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System (PI-RADS) scores, interreader agreement, and diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1 for transition zone (TZ) lesions. METHODS:The study included 202 lesions in 202 patients who underwent 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging showing a TZ lesion that was later biopsied with magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion. Five abdominal imaging faculty reviewed T2-weighted imaging and high b value/apparent diffusion coefficient images in 2 sessions. Cases were randomized using a crossover design whereby half in the first session were reviewed using v2.0 and the other half using v2.1, and vice versa for the 2nd session. Readers provided T2-weighted imaging and DWI scores, from which PI-RADS scores were derived. RESULTS:Interreader agreement for all PI-RADS scores had κ of 0.37 (v2.0) and 0.26 (v2.1). For 4 readers, the percentage of lesions retrospectively scored PI-RADS 1 increased greater than 5% and PI-RADS 2 score decreased greater than 5% from v2.0 to v2.1. For 2 readers, the percentage scored PI-RADS 3 decreased greater than 5% and, for 2 readers, increased greater than 5%. The percentage of PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions changed less than 5% for all readers. For the 4 readers with increased frequency of PI-RADS 1 using v2.1, 4% to 16% were Gleason score ≥3 + 4 tumor. Frequency of Gleason score ≥3 + 4 in PI-RADS 3 lesions increased for 2 readers and decreased for 1 reader. Sensitivity of PI-RADS of 3 or greater for Gleason score ≥3 + 4 ranged 76% to 90% (v2.0) and 69% to 96% (v2.1). Specificity ranged 32% to 64% (v2.0) and 25% to 72% (v2.1). Positive predictive value ranged 43% to 55% (v2.0) and 41% to 58% (v2.1). Negative predictive value ranged 82% to 87% (v2.0) and 81% to 91% (v2.1). CONCLUSIONS:Poor interreader agreement and lack of improvement in diagnostic performance indicate an ongoing need to refine evaluation of TZ lesions.

BACKGROUND:The use of treatment planning prostate MRI for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) is largely a standard, yet not all patients can receive MRI for a variety of clinical reasons. Thus, we aim to investigate the safety of patients who received CT alone based SBRT planning for the definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer. METHODS:Our study analyzed 3410 patients with localized prostate cancer who were treated with SBRT at a single academic institution between 2006 and 2020. Acute and late toxicity was evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaires evaluated QOL and PSA nadir was evaluated to detect biochemical failures. RESULTS:A total of 162 patients (4.75%) received CT alone for treatment planning. The CT alone group was older relative to the MRI group (69.9 vs 67.2, p < 0.001) and had higher risk and grade disease (p < 0.001). Additionally, the CT group exhibited a trend in larger CTVs (82.56 cc vs 76.90 cc; p = 0.055), lower total radiation doses (p = 0.048), and more frequent pelvic nodal radiation versus the MRI group (p < 0.001). There were only two reported cases of Grade 3 + toxicity within the CT alone group. Quality of life data within the CT alone group revealed declines in urinary and bowel scores at one month with return to baseline at subsequent follow up. Early biochemical failure data at median time of 2.3 years revealed five failures by Phoenix definition. CONCLUSIONS:While clinical differences existed between the MRI and CT alone group, we observed tolerable toxicity profiles in the CT alone cohort, which was further supported by EPIC questionnaire data. The overall clinical outcomes appear comparable in patients unable to receive MRI for their SBRT treatment plan with early clinical follow up.