Improving image quality of sparse-view lung tumor CT images with U-Net

Background: We aimed at improving image quality (IQ) of sparse-view computed tomography (CT) images using a U-Net for lung metastasis detection and determining the best tradeoff between number of views, IQ, and diagnostic confidence. Methods: CT images from 41 subjects aged 62.8 $\pm$ 10.6 years (mean $\pm$ standard deviation), 23 men, 34 with lung metastasis, 7 healthy, were retrospectively selected (2016-2018) and forward projected onto 2,048-view sinograms. Six corresponding sparse-view CT data subsets at varying levels of undersampling were reconstructed from sinograms using filtered backprojection with 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, and 512 views. A dual-frame U-Net was trained and evaluated for each subsampling level on 8,658 images from 22 diseased subjects. A representative image per scan was selected from 19 subjects (12 diseased, 7 healthy) for a single-blinded multireader study. These slices, for all levels of subsampling, with and without U-Net postprocessing, were presented to three readers. IQ and diagnostic confidence were ranked using predefined scales. Subjective nodule segmentation was evaluated using sensitivity and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC); clustered Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. Results: The 64-projection sparse-view images resulted in 0.89 sensitivity and 0.81 DSC, while their counterparts, postprocessed with the U-Net, had improved metrics (0.94 sensitivity and 0.85 DSC) (p = 0.400). Fewer views led to insufficient IQ for diagnosis. For increased views, no substantial discrepancies were noted between sparse-view and postprocessed images. Conclusions: Projection views can be reduced from 2,048 to 64 while maintaining IQ and the confidence of the radiologists on a satisfactory level.

PDF Abstract
No code implementations yet. Submit your code now

Datasets


  Add Datasets introduced or used in this paper

Results from the Paper


  Submit results from this paper to get state-of-the-art GitHub badges and help the community compare results to other papers.

Methods