Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Virtual contrast-enhanced (vCE) breast MRI is a deep learning approach for generating contrast-like images from non-contrast acquisitions. As diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) has emerged as a major contributor to enhancement synthesis, understanding the influence of DWI-related image artifacts is important for the robustness and potential clinical implementation of AI-based contrast-free imaging approaches. We evaluated the robustness of a pix2pix-based vCE synthesis model to artifact-contaminated DWI during training and inference. Materials and methods This IRB-approved, retrospective study included 1,974 multiparametric breast MRI examinations (mean age: 49 years) acquired with two clinical routine 3T MRI scanners (2017–2022). High b-value (b = 1500 s/mm 2 ) DWI images were automatically classified for high-intensity (HI) and low-intensity (LI) artifacts using a pretrained neural network. A pix2pix 2D-GAN was trained either after excluding artifact-affected slices (vCE-clean) or using all available slices (vCE-all). Performance was evaluated using image similarity metrics, lesion-based analysis, reader assessment, and correlation of artifact scores with reconstruction errors. Results Excluding artifact-affected slices during training resulted in a small but statistically significant increase in whole-image structural similarity index (SSIM) with small effect size ( vCE-all 0.843 ± 0.034; vCE-clean 0.849 ± 0.031, p < 0.001, d av = 0.20). However, lesion-based metrics and qualitative ratings of lesion enhancement and image quality were comparable between models. During Inference, strong LI DWI artifacts were associated with higher lesion-based errors. Conclusion Controlling for artifacts on diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) during vCE training only minorly influenced technical metrics but not perceived image quality/lesion enhancement. In contrast, severe signal-loss artifacts during inference impaired local performance, highlighting the importance of image quality control during potential deployment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brock et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: