Treffer: Real-Time Deep-Learning Image Reconstruction and Instrument Tracking in MR-Guided Biopsies.
Original Publication: Chicago, IL : Society for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, c1991-
Front Oncol. 2025 Jan 17;14:1519536. (PMID: 39896182)
Med Image Anal. 2019 Apr;53:104-110. (PMID: 30763829)
Magn Reson Med. 2021 Oct;86(4):1904-1916. (PMID: 34032308)
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021 Dec;217(6):1263-1281. (PMID: 34259038)
Med Phys. 2024 Nov;51(11):8018-8033. (PMID: 39292615)
Nat Methods. 2021 Feb;18(2):203-211. (PMID: 33288961)
Comput Biol Med. 2025 Sep;196(Pt B):110777. (PMID: 40738054)
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2019 Jan;38(1):280-290. (PMID: 30080145)
Eur Radiol. 2017 Apr;27(4):1776-1782. (PMID: 27436021)
Phys Med Biol. 2020 Aug 07;65(15):155015. (PMID: 32408295)
Br J Radiol. 2022 Mar 1;95(1131):20210363. (PMID: 34324383)
Urol Oncol. 2020 Sep;38(9):734.e19-734.e25. (PMID: 32321689)
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):517-531. (PMID: 27568655)
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2026 Feb;63(2):475-483. (PMID: 41035253)
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2013 Nov;8(6):937-44. (PMID: 23532560)
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017 Apr 19;19(1):45. (PMID: 28424090)
J Urol. 2018 Jul;200(1):89-94. (PMID: 29410202)
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2025 May;12(3):035001. (PMID: 40469203)
CA Cancer J Clin. 2024 May-Jun;74(3):229-263. (PMID: 38572751)
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022 Feb;25(2):174-179. (PMID: 34548624)
NMR Biomed. 2022 Apr;35(4):e4231. (PMID: 31856431)
Eur Radiol. 2012 Feb;22(2):476-83. (PMID: 21956697)
Magn Reson Med. 2007 Jun;57(6):1086-98. (PMID: 17534903)
Local Abstract: [plain-language-summary] Prostate biopsies guided by MRI are accurate but slow. This paper discusses a method to speed it up using artificial intelligence (AI). The method creates medical images from less data, allowing for the tracking of the biopsy needle guide tip in near real‐time. The AI was trained using 8464 scans of 1289 men and was then tested in 8 patients. Success was defined as the tip being within 5 mm of its actual position. The method stayed accurate with as little as one‐sixteenth of the usual data. Such speed‐ups could shorten procedures and free up scanner time.
Weitere Informationen
Background: Transrectal in-bore MR-guided biopsy (MRGB) is accurate but time-consuming, limiting clinical throughput. Faster imaging could improve workflow and enable real-time instrument tracking. Existing acceleration methods often use simulated data and lack validation in clinical settings.
Purpose: To accelerate MRGB by using deep learning for undersampled image reconstruction and instrument tracking, trained on multi-slice MR DICOM images and evaluated on raw k-space acquisitions.
Study Type: Prospective feasibility study.
Population: Briefly, 1289 male patients (aged 44-87, median age 68) for model training, 8 male patients (aged 59-78, median age 65) for prospective feasibility testing.
Field Strength/sequence: 2D Cartesian balanced steady-state free precession, 3 T.
Assessment: Segmentation and reconstruction models were trained on 8464 MRGB confirmation scans containing a biopsy needle guide instrument and evaluated on 10 prospectively acquired dynamic k-space samples. Needle guide tracking accuracy was assessed using instrument tip prediction (ITP) error, computed per frame as the Euclidean distance from reference positions defined via pre- and post-movement scans. Feasibility was measured by the proportion of frames with < 5 mm error. Additional experiments tested model robustness under increasing undersampling rates.
Statistical Tests: In a segmentation validation experiment, a one-sample t-test tested if the mean ITP error was below 5 mm. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. In the tracking experiments, the mean, standard deviation, and Wilson 95% CI of the ITP success rate were computed per sample, across undersampling levels.
Results: ITP was first evaluated independently on 201 fully sampled scans, yielding an ITP error of 1.55 ± 1.01 mm (95% CI: 1.41-1.69). Tracking performance was assessed across increasing undersampling factors, achieving high ITP success rates from 97.5% ± 5.8% (68.8%-99.9%) at 8× up to 92.5% ± 10.3% (62.5%-98.9%) at 16× undersampling. Performance declined at 18×, dropping to 74.6% ± 33.6% (43.8%-91.7%).
Data Conclusion: Results confirm stable needle guide tip prediction accuracy and support the robustness of the reconstruction model for tracking at high undersampling.
Evidence Level: 2.
Technical Efficacy: Stage 2.
(© 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.)