Deep-Learning-Based Image Denoising in Imaging of Urolithiasis: Assessment of Image Quality and Comparison to State-of-the-Art Iterative Reconstructions
Robert Terzis,
Robert Peter Reimer,
Christian Nelles,
Erkan Celik,
Liliana Caldeira,
Axel Heidenreich,
Enno Storz,
David Maintz,
David Zopfs,
Nils Große Hokamp
Affiliations
Robert Terzis
Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany
Robert Peter Reimer
Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany
Christian Nelles
Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany
Erkan Celik
Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany
Liliana Caldeira
Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany
Axel Heidenreich
Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology, Robot-Assisted and Specialized Urologic Surger, University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany
Enno Storz
Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology, Robot-Assisted and Specialized Urologic Surger, University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany
David Maintz
Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany
David Zopfs
Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany
Nils Große Hokamp
Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany
This study aimed to compare the image quality and diagnostic accuracy of deep-learning-based image denoising reconstructions (DLIDs) to established iterative reconstructed algorithms in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of patients with suspected urolithiasis. LDCTs (CTDIvol, 2 mGy) of 76 patients (age: 40.3 ± 5.2 years, M/W: 51/25) with suspected urolithiasis were retrospectively included. Filtered-back projection (FBP), hybrid iterative and model-based iterative reconstruction (HIR/MBIR, respectively) were reconstructed. FBP images were processed using a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved DLID. ROIs were placed in renal parenchyma, fat, muscle and urinary bladder. Signal- and contrast-to-noise ratios (SNR/CNR, respectively) were calculated. Two radiologists evaluated image quality on five-point Likert scales and urinary stones. The results showed a progressive decrease in image noise from FBP, HIR and DLID to MBIR with significant differences between each method (p p p 2 = 0.958–0.975). In conclusion, MBIR yielded the highest image quality and diagnostic accuracy, with DLID producing better results than HIR and FBP in image quality and matching HIR in diagnostic precision.