Synthesizing Contrast-Enhanced MR Images from Noncontrast MR Images Using Deep Learning

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Villanueva-Meyer JE,
   2. Mabray MC,
   3. Cha SJN

   . Current clinical brain tumor imaging. Neurosurgery 2017;81:397–415 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyx103 pmid:28486641

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Weinreb JC,
   2. Rodby RA,
   3. Yee J, et al

   . Use of intravenous gadolinium-based contrast media in patients with kidney disease: consensus statements from the American College of Radiology and the National Kidney Foundation. Kidney Med 2021;3:142–50 doi:10.1016/j.xkme.2020.10.001 pmid:33604544

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Hoggard N,
   2. Roditi GH

   . T₁ hyperintensity on brain imaging subsequent to gadolinium-based contrast agent administration: what do we know about intracranial gadolinium deposition? Br J Radiol 2017;90:20160590 doi:10.1259/bjr.20160590 pmid:27653560

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Wang J,
   2. Wang H,
   3. Ramsay IA, et al

   . Manganese-based contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging of liver tumors: structure–activity relationships and lead candidate evaluation. J Med Chem 2018;61:8811–24 doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b00964

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Greer JS,
   2. Wang X,
   3. Wang Y, et al

   . Robust pCASL perfusion imaging using a 3D Cartesian acquisition with spiral profile reordering (CASPR). Magn Reson Med 2019;82:1713–24 doi:10.1002/mrm.27862 pmid:31231894

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Viswanathan S,
   2. Kovacs Z,
   3. Green KN, et al

   . Alternatives to gadolinium-based metal chelates for magnetic resonance imaging. Chem Rev 2010;110:2960–3018 doi:10.1021/cr900284a pmid:20397688

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Menze BH,
   2. Jakab A,
   3. Bauer S, et al

   . The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (BRATS). IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2014;34:1993–2024 doi:10.1109/TMI.2014.2377694 pmid:25494501

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Bakas S,
   2. Akbari H,
   3. Sotiras A, et al

   . Advancing the cancer genome atlas glioma MRI collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features. Sci Data 2017;4:170117

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Rohlfing T,
   2. Zahr NM,
   3. Sullivan EV, et al

   . The SRI24 multichannel atlas of normal adult human brain structure. Hum Brain Mapp 2010;31:798–819 doi:10.1002/hbm.20906 pmid:20017133

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Bakas S,
    2. Reyes M,
    3. Jakab A, et al

    . Identifying the best machine learning algorithms for brain tumor segmentation, progression assessment, and overall survival prediction in the BRATS challenge. 2018
11. 11.↵
    1. Tustison NJ,
    2. Cook PA,
    3. Klein A, et al

    . Large-scale evaluation of ANTs and FreeSurfer cortical thickness measurements. Neuroimage 2014;99:166–79 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.044 pmid:24879923

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    1. Kleesiek J,
    2. Morshuis JN,
    3. Isensee F, et al

    . Can virtual contrast enhancement in brain MRI replace gadolinium? A feasibility study. Invest Radiology 2019;54:653–60 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000583 pmid:31261293

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Lin M,
    2. Chen Q,
    3. Yan S

    . Network in network. arXiv preprint arXiv 2013;1312.4400
14. 14.↵
    1. Szegedy C,
    2. Liu W,
    3. Jia Y, et al

    . Going deeper with convolutions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Boston, Massachusetts. June 7–12, 2015;1–9
15. 15.↵
    1. A. Crimi,
    2. S. Bakas

    1. Murugesan GK,
    2. Nalawade S,
    3. Ganesh C, et al

    . Multidimensional and multiresolution ensemble networks for brain tumor segmentation. In: A. Crimi, S. Bakas, eds. Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12658. Springer; 2021;448–57
16. 16.↵
    1. Ichimura N

    . Spatial frequency loss for learning convolutional autoencoders. arXiv 2018;1806.02336
17. 17.↵
    1. B. Leibe,
    2. J. Matas,
    3. N. Sebe,
    4. M. Welling

    1. Johnson J,
    2. Alahi A,
    3. Fei-Fei L

    . Perceptual losses for real-time style transfer and super-resolution. In: B. Leibe, J. Matas, N. Sebe, M. Welling, eds. Computer Vision. ECCV 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9906. Springer; 2016;694–711
18. 18.↵
    1. M. Cardoso, et al

    1. BenTaieb A,
    2. Hamarneh G

    . Uncertainty driven multi-loss fully convolutional networks for histopathology. In: M. Cardoso, et al. Intravascular Imaging and Computer Assisted Stenting, and Large-Scale Annotation of Biomedical Data and Expert Label Synthesis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10552. Springer; 2017;155–63
19. 19.↵
    1. Gong E,
    2. Pauly JM,
    3. Wintermark M, et al

    . Deep learning enables reduced gadolinium dose for contrast‐enhanced brain MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;48:330–40 doi:10.1002/jmri.25970 pmid:29437269

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Narayana PA,
    2. Coronado I,
    3. Sujit SJ, et al

    . Deep learning for predicting enhancing lesions in multiple sclerosis from noncontrast MRI. Radiology 2020;294:398–404 doi:10.1148/radiol.2019191061 pmid:31845845

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Calabrese E,
    2. Rudie JD,
    3. Rauschecker AM, et al

    . Feasibility of simulated postcontrast MRI of glioblastomas and lower-grade gliomas by using three-dimensional fully convolutional neural networks. Radiology Artif Intell 2021;3:e200276 doi:10.1148/ryai.2021200276 pmid:34617027

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Duffy BA,
    2. Zhao L,
    3. Sepehrband F

    , Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, et al. Retrospective motion artifact correction of structural MRI images using deep learning improves the quality of cortical surface reconstructions. Neuroimage 2021;230:117756 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117756 pmid:33460797

    CrossRefPubMed