Prostatic urinary tract visualization with super-resolution deep learning models.

Journal: PloS one
Published Date:

Abstract

In urethra-sparing radiation therapy, prostatic urinary tract visualization is important in decreasing the urinary side effect. A methodology has been developed to visualize the prostatic urinary tract using post-urination magnetic resonance imaging (PU-MRI) without a urethral catheter. This study investigated whether the combination of PU-MRI and super-resolution (SR) deep learning models improves the visibility of the prostatic urinary tract. We enrolled 30 patients who had previously undergone real-time-image-gated spot scanning proton therapy by insertion of fiducial markers. PU-MRI was performed using a non-contrast high-resolution two-dimensional T2-weighted turbo spin-echo imaging sequence. Four different SR deep learning models were used: the enhanced deep SR network (EDSR), widely activated SR network (WDSR), SR generative adversarial network (SRGAN), and residual dense network (RDN). The complex wavelet structural similarity index measure (CW-SSIM) was used to quantitatively assess the performance of the proposed SR images compared to PU-MRI. Two radiation oncologists used a 1-to-5 scale to subjectively evaluate the visibility of the prostatic urinary tract. Cohen's weighted kappa (k) was used as a measure of agreement of inter-operator reliability. The mean CW-SSIM in EDSR, WDSR, SRGAN, and RDN was 99.86%, 99.89%, 99.30%, and 99.67%, respectively. The mean prostatic urinary tract visibility scores of the radiation oncologists were 3.70 and 3.53 for PU-MRI (k = 0.93), 3.67 and 2.70 for EDSR (k = 0.89), 3.70 and 2.73 for WDSR (k = 0.88), 3.67 and 2.73 for SRGAN (k = 0.88), and 4.37 and 3.73 for RDN (k = 0.93), respectively. The results suggest that SR images using RDN are similar to the original images, and the SR deep learning models subjectively improve the visibility of the prostatic urinary tract.

Authors

  • Takaaki Yoshimura
    Department of Health Sciences and Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
  • Kentaro Nishioka
    Department of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
  • Takayuki Hashimoto
    Department of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
  • Takashi Mori
    Department of Radiation Oncology, Hokkaido University Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.
  • Shoki Kogame
    Division of Radiological Science and Technology, Department of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
  • Kazuya Seki
    Division of Radiological Science and Technology, Department of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
  • Hiroyuki Sugimori
    Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0812, Japan.
  • Hiroko Yamashina
    Department of Biomedical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
  • Yusuke Nomura
    Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 060-8638, Japan.
  • Fumi Kato
    Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hokkaido University Hospital, North 14 West 5 Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8648, Japan. fumikato@med.hokudai.ac.jp.
  • Kohsuke Kudo
    Departments of Diagnostic Imaging, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, kita 15, nishi 7, kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8638, Japan.
  • Shinichi Shimizu
    Department of Carbon Ion Radiotherapy, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
  • Hidefumi Aoyama
    Department of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 1-757 Asahimachi-dori, Chuo-ku, Niigata, 951-8510, Japan.