2986
View Abstract / View Presentation
FAST 3D vs. Compressed Sensing vs. Parallel Imaging: Image Quality Improvement on MRCP with and without Deep Learning Reconstruction
Takahiro Matsuyama1, Yoshiharu Ohno1,2, Kaori Yamamoto3, Kazuhiro Murayama2, Masato Ikedo3, Masao Yui3, Akiyoshi Iwase4, Takashi Fukuba4, Satomu Hanamatsu1, Yuki Obama1, Takahiro Ueda1, Hirotaka Ikeda1, and Hiroshi Toyama1
1Radiology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan, 2Joint Research Laboratory of Advanced Medical Imaging, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan, 3Canon Medical Systems Corporation, Otawara, Japan, 4Radiology, Fujita Health University Hospital, Toyoake, Japan
DLR method (AiCE) can significantly improve image quality of MRCP at all protocols.  Image quality of FAST 3D is superior to that of Compressed SPEEDER and considered as compatible with conventional SPEEDR on MRCP.

Figure 1. 71-year old patient with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. (First line from L to R: MRCPFAST 3D with AiCE, MRCPCompressed SPEEDER with AiCE and MRCPconventional SPEEDER with AiCE; second line from L to R: MRCPFAST 3D without AiCE, MRCPCompressed SPEEDER without AiCE and MRCPconventional SPEEDER without AiCE).

MRCPFAST 3D and MRCPconventional SPEEDER more clearly depict intrahepatic bile duct as well as main pancreatic duct than MRCPCompressed SPEEDER, when applied AiCE or not. In addition, AiCE was able to improve image quality of MRCP obtained by each technique.

Figure 4. Compared results of interobserver agreement and qualitative image qualities among all methods.

Interobserver agreement on each method was ranged between 0.44 and 0.77. When applied AiCE, each index on MRCP obtained by each technique and reconstructed with AiCE were significantly higher than those without AiCE (p<0.05). On each index, MRCPCompressed SPEEDER with and without AiCE were significantly lower than MRCPFAST 3D or MRCPconventional SPEEDER with and without AiCE (p<0.05).