Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Convolutional Neural Networks with a Deeper U-Net for Sparse-View Computed Tomography Reconstruction.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES To evaluate the utility of a convolutional neural network (CNN) with an increased number of contracting and expanding paths of U-net for sparse-view CT reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study used 60 anonymized chest CT cases from a public database called "The Cancer Imaging Archive". Eight thousand images from 40 cases were used for training. Eight hundred and 80 images from another 20 cases were used for quantitative and qualitative evaluation, respectively. Sparse-view CT images subsampled by a factor of 20 were simulated, and two CNNs were trained to create denoised images from the sparse-view CT. A CNN based on U-net with residual learning with four contracting and expanding paths (the preceding CNN) was compared with another CNN with eight contracting and expanding paths (the proposed CNN) both quantitatively (peak signal to noise ratio, structural similarity index), and qualitatively (the scores given by two radiologists for anatomical visibility, artifact and noise, and overall image quality) using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Nodule and emphysema appearance were also evaluated qualitatively. RESULTS The proposed CNN was significantly better than the preceding CNN both quantitatively and qualitatively (overall image quality interquartile range, 3.0-3.5 versus 1.0-1.0 reported from the preceding CNN; p < 0.001). However, only 2 of 22 cases used for emphysematous evaluation (2 CNNs for every 11 cases with emphysema) had an average score of ≥ 2 (on a 3 point scale). CONCLUSION Increasing contracting and expanding paths may be useful for sparse-view CT reconstruction with CNN. However, poor reproducibility of emphysema appearance should also be noted.

[1]  R. McCunney,et al.  Radiation Risks in Lung Cancer Screening Programs. , 2014, Chest.

[2]  C. McCollough,et al.  Radiation dose reduction in computed tomography: techniques and future perspective. , 2009, Imaging in medicine.

[3]  Jin Liu,et al.  Artifact Removal using Improved GoogLeNet for Sparse-view CT Reconstruction , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[4]  Stephen M. Moore,et al.  The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): Maintaining and Operating a Public Information Repository , 2013, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[5]  C. Gatsonis,et al.  Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening , 2012 .

[6]  Linghong Zhou,et al.  Sparse-view computed tomography image reconstruction via a combination of L(1) and SL(0) regularization. , 2015, Bio-medical materials and engineering.

[7]  J. Albert,et al.  Radiation risk from CT: implications for cancer screening. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  Gaohang Yu,et al.  Sparse-view x-ray CT reconstruction via total generalized variation regularization , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  C. Pal,et al.  Deep Learning: A Primer for Radiologists. , 2017, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[10]  J. E. Tucker,et al.  CT radiation dose: current controversies and dose reduction strategies. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  Karen Drukker,et al.  LUNGx Challenge for computerized lung nodule classification: reflections and lessons learned. , 2015, Journal of medical imaging.

[12]  G. Laszlo,et al.  Computed tomography in pulmonary emphysema. , 1982, Clinical radiology.

[13]  Jan Kautz,et al.  Loss Functions for Image Restoration With Neural Networks , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging.

[14]  Zhaoying Bian,et al.  Iterative Image Reconstruction for Sparse-View CT Using Normal-Dose Image Induced Total Variation Prior , 2013, PloS one.

[15]  Richard K. G. Do,et al.  Convolutional neural networks: an overview and application in radiology , 2018, Insights into Imaging.

[16]  Oleg S. Pianykh,et al.  Current Applications and Future Impact of Machine Learning in Radiology. , 2018, Radiology.

[17]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[18]  D. Brenner,et al.  Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  Michael Unser,et al.  CNN-Based Projected Gradient Descent for Consistent CT Image Reconstruction , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[20]  D. L. Donoho,et al.  Compressed sensing , 2006, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[21]  C. McCollough,et al.  CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. , 2006, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[22]  Jie Tang,et al.  Prior image constrained compressed sensing (PICCS): a method to accurately reconstruct dynamic CT images from highly undersampled projection data sets. , 2008, Medical physics.

[23]  Jan Sijbers,et al.  Fast and flexible X-ray tomography using the ASTRA toolbox. , 2016, Optics express.

[24]  Karen Drukker,et al.  LUNGx Challenge for computerized lung nodule classification , 2016, Journal of medical imaging.

[25]  Thomas Brox,et al.  U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation , 2015, MICCAI.

[26]  Jong Chul Ye,et al.  Framing U-Net via Deep Convolutional Framelets: Application to Sparse-View CT , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[27]  Michael Unser,et al.  Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Inverse Problems in Imaging , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.