Zhou Shu-Han, Lin Mao-Shen, Luo Yu, He Hao-Qiang, Wang Shao-Jin, Shang Lin-Tao, Dong Tian-You, Fan Wen-Jun, Chi Feng
Department of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2025 Jun 6;10(9):101819. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2025.101819. eCollection 2025 Sep.
To explore the potential of artificial intelligence-assisted compressed sensing (ACS) technique, when compared with that of conventional parallel imaging (PI) technique, in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulation for head and neck cancer radiation therapy.
Fifty-two patients with pathologically confirmed head and neck cancer underwent MRI simulation using a 3.0-T MRI simulation system. For each patient, axial T1-weighted gradient spin echo, T2-weighted fast spin echo sequence, and postcontrast and postcontrast fat-suppressed T1-weighted gradient spin echo sequence were obtained by ACS and PI. Acquisition time, signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, and image quality of both sets of MRI simulation images were compared. Image quality analysis was scored with lesion detection, margin sharpness of lesions, artifacts, and overall image quality using the 5-point Likert scale. Moreover, tumor target volume acquired from fusion images of simulation computed tomography with simulation MRI by ACS and from fusion images by PI were compared. Dice similarity coefficient of gross tumor target between fusion images by ACS and those by PI were also measured.
Acquisition time of MRI simulation by ACS was significantly shorter than that by PI, whether for the time of individual sequence or the total acquisition time ( < .05 for all). The mean total acquisition time by PI (694.78 ± 16.85 seconds) was significantly less after using ACS (378.50 ± 10.05 seconds), with a mean reduction ratio 45.52%. Signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio values and qualitative image scores (lesion detection, margin sharpness, artifacts, and overall image quality) were almost comparable between ACS and PI. Mean tumor target volume of both primary tumors and metastatic lymph nodes acquired from fusion images by ACS were also comparable to those from fusion images by PI ( > .05 for all). Mean Dice similarity coefficient values for primary tumors and metastatic lymph nodes were both close to 1.
Compared to PI, ACS can significantly accelerate MRI simulation for head and neck cancer radiation therapy without compromising image quality and degrading the guidance role of tumor target delineation.
在头颈部癌放射治疗的磁共振成像(MRI)模拟中,探讨人工智能辅助压缩感知(ACS)技术相较于传统并行成像(PI)技术的潜力。
52例经病理证实的头颈部癌患者使用3.0-T MRI模拟系统进行MRI模拟。对于每位患者,通过ACS和PI获得轴向T1加权梯度自旋回波、T2加权快速自旋回波序列以及对比剂增强和对比剂增强脂肪抑制T1加权梯度自旋回波序列。比较两组MRI模拟图像的采集时间、信噪比、对比噪声比和图像质量。使用5分制李克特量表对病变检测、病变边缘清晰度、伪影和整体图像质量进行图像质量分析评分。此外,比较通过ACS从模拟计算机断层扫描与模拟MRI的融合图像中获取的肿瘤靶体积和通过PI从融合图像中获取的肿瘤靶体积。还测量了ACS融合图像与PI融合图像之间大体肿瘤靶区的骰子相似系数。
无论对于单个序列的时间还是总采集时间,ACS进行MRI模拟的采集时间均显著短于PI(所有均P<0.05)。使用ACS后,PI的平均总采集时间(694.78±16.85秒)显著减少(378.50±10.05秒),平均减少率为45.52%。ACS和PI之间的信噪比、对比噪声比值以及定性图像评分(病变检测、边缘清晰度、伪影和整体图像质量)几乎相当。通过ACS从融合图像中获取的原发性肿瘤和转移性淋巴结的平均肿瘤靶体积也与通过PI从融合图像中获取的相当(所有均P>0.05)。原发性肿瘤和转移性淋巴结的平均骰子相似系数值均接近1。
与PI相比,ACS可显著加速头颈部癌放射治疗的MRI模拟,而不影响图像质量和降低肿瘤靶区勾画的指导作用。