Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Model to Simulate Contrast-enhanced spinal MRI of Spinal Tumors: A Multi-Center Study.
Authors
Affiliations (4)
Affiliations (4)
- Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Vascular Homeostasis and Remodeling, Peking University Third Hospital, 49 North Garden Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100191, PR China (C.W., J.X., H.W., Q.W., Y.Z., X.X., N.L.).
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, State Key Laboratory of Vascular Homeostasis and Remodeling, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Beijing 100191, China (S.Z.).
- Department of Radiology, the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China (D.H.).
- Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Vascular Homeostasis and Remodeling, Peking University Third Hospital, 49 North Garden Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100191, PR China (C.W., J.X., H.W., Q.W., Y.Z., X.X., N.L.). Electronic address: [email protected].
Abstract
To generate virtual T1 contrast-enhanced (T1CE) sequences from plain spinal MRI sequences using the denoising diffusion probabilistic model (DDPM) and to compare its performance against one baseline model pix2pix and three advanced models. A total of 1195 consecutive spinal tumor patients who underwent contrast-enhanced MRI at two hospitals were divided into a training set (n = 809, 49 ± 17 years, 437 men), an internal test set (n = 203, 50 ± 16 years, 105 men), and an external test set (n = 183, 52 ± 16 years, 94 men). Input sequences were T1- and T2-weighted images, and T2 fat-saturation images. The output was T1CE images. In the test set, one radiologist read the virtual images and marked all visible enhancing lesions. Results were evaluated using sensitivity (SE) and false discovery rate (FDR). We compared differences in lesion size and enhancement degree between reference and virtual images, and calculated signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) for image quality assessment. In the external test set, the mean squared error was 0.0038±0.0065, and structural similarity index 0.78±0.10. Upon evaluation by the reader, the overall SE of the generated T1CE images was 94% with FDR 2%. There was no difference in lesion size or signal intensity ratio between the reference and generated images. The CNR was higher in the generated images than the reference images (9.241 vs. 4.021; P＜0.001). The proposed DDPM demonstrates potential as an alternative to gadolinium contrast in spinal MRI examinations of oncologic patients.