PLoS ONE (Jan 2023)

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

  • Takaaki Yoshimura,
  • Kentaro Nishioka,
  • Takayuki Hashimoto,
  • Takashi Mori,
  • Shoki Kogame,
  • Kazuya Seki,
  • Hiroyuki Sugimori,
  • Hiroko Yamashina,
  • Yusuke Nomura,
  • Fumi Kato,
  • Kohsuke Kudo,
  • Shinichi Shimizu,
  • Hidefumi Aoyama

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280076
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 18, no. 1
p. e0280076

Abstract

Read online

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.