Synopsis
Motivation:
Goals:
Approach:
Results:
560-06-011
ISMRM Abstract
Deep learning enhancement enables PI-RADS compliant prostate MRI at 0.55T
Accepted
Full abstract & presentation
The full text, figures, and any recorded presentation for this abstract are not shown here. Log in if you are a member or registered attendee with access.
Full abstracts, figures, and presentations for Cape Town - 2026 ISMRM-ISMRT Annual Meeting and Exhibition are available to registered attendees. This content becomes freely available to the public roughly two years after the meeting.
To request or purchase access, contact the ISMRM Central Office at info@ismrm.org.
Log inReferences
1. Yilmaz EC, Esengur OT, Gelikman DG, Turkbey B (2025) Interpreting Prostate Multiparametric MRI: Beyond Adenocarcinoma – Anatomical Variations, Mimickers, and Post-Intervention Changes. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 46:2–30. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2024.11.001 [doi]
2. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al (2016) PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69:16-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 [doi]
3. Chandarana H, Bagga B, Huang C, et al (2021) Diagnostic abdominal MR imaging on a prototype low-field 0.55 T scanner operating at two different gradient strengths. Abdom Radiol 46:5772-5780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03234-1 [doi]
4. Shetty AS, Ludwig DR, Ippolito JE, et al (2023) Low-Field-Strength Body MRI: Challenges and Opportunities at 0.55 T. RadioGraphics 43:e230073. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.230073 [doi]
5. Koonjoo N, Zhu B, Bagnall GC, et al (2021) Boosting the signal-to-noise of low-field MRI with deep learning image reconstruction. Sci Rep 11:8248. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87482-7 [doi]
6. Segeroth M, Breit H-C, Wasserthal J, et al (2025) AI-Based Evaluation of Prostate MR Imaging at a Modern Low-field 0.55 T Scanner Compared to 3 T in a Screening Cohort. Acad Radiol 32:2700–2706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.11.024 [doi]
7. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al (2019) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol 76:340-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033 [doi]
8. Klein S, Staring M, Murphy K, et al (2010) elastix: A Toolbox for Intensity-Based Medical Image Registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 29:196-205. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2009.2035616 [doi]
9. Li X, Huang W, Rooney WD (2012) Signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio and pharmacokinetic modeling considerations in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 30:1313–1322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.005 [doi]
10. De Rooij M, Allen C, Twilt JJ, et al (2024) PI-QUAL version 2: an update of a standardised scoring system for the assessment of image quality of prostate MRI. Eur Radiol 34:7068–7079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10795-4 [doi]
11. Purysko AS, Baroni RH, Giganti F, et al (2021) PI-RADS Version 2.1: A Critical Review, From the AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems. Am J Roentgenol 216:20–32. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.24495 [doi]
12. Lee K-L, Kessler DA, Dezonie S, et al (2023) Assessment of deep learning-based reconstruction on T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted prostate MRI image quality. Eur J Radiol 166:111017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.111017 [doi]
13. Harder FN, Weiss K, Amiel T, et al (2022) Prospectively Accelerated T2-Weighted Imaging of the Prostate by Combining Compressed SENSE and Deep Learning in Patients with Histologically Proven Prostate Cancer. Cancers 14:5741. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14235741 [doi]
14. Park JC, Park KJ, Park MY, et al (2022) Fast T2‐Weighted Imaging With Deep Learning‐Based Reconstruction: Evaluation of Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy. J Magn Reson Imaging 55:1735–1744. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27992 [doi]
15. Ullrich T, Quentin M, Oelers C, et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 1.5 versus 3.0 T: A prospective comparison study of image quality. Eur J Radiol 90:192–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.044 [doi]
16. Lewis S, Ganti A, Argiriadi P, et al (2022) Prostate MRI using a rigid two-channel phased-array endorectal coil: comparison with phased array coil acquisition at 3 T. Cancer Imaging 22:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00453-7 [doi]
17. O’Donohoe RL, Dunne RM, Kimbrell V, Tempany CM (2019) Prostate MRI using an external phased array wearable pelvic coil at 3T: comparison with an endorectal coil. Abdom Radiol 44:1062–1069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1804-9 [doi]
18. Barth BK, Cornelius A, Nanz D, et al (2016) Comparison of image quality and patient discomfort in prostate MRI: pelvic phased array coil vs. endorectal coil. Abdom Radiol 41:2218–2226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0819-3 [doi]
19. Kim BS, Kim T-H, Kwon TG, Yoo ES (2012) Comparison of Pelvic Phased-Array versus Endorectal Coil Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 3 Tesla for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer. Yonsei Med J 53:550. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2012.53.3.550 [doi]
20. Ueda T, Ohno Y, Yamamoto K, et al (2022) Deep Learning Reconstruction of Diffusion-weighted MRI Improves Image Quality for Prostatic Imaging. Radiology 303:373–381. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.204097 [doi]
21. Mazaheri Y, Vargas HA, Nyman G, et al (2013) Diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate at 3.0T: Comparison of endorectal coil (ERC) MRI and phased-array coil (PAC) MRI—The impact of SNR on ADC measurement. Eur J Radiol 82:e515–e520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.04.041 [doi]
Cite this abstract
http://echo.ismrm.org/p/ISMRM2026/560-06-011