EUROSPINE 2026 — Spine in Motion Gothenburg, 7–9 October 2026

Basic Science & Economics

Synthetic CT from Diagnostic Spine MRI: a Multi-Center Approach for Radiation-Free Bone Visualization

R. Pollitt1, T.P. Schlösser1, M. Van Stralen2, L.W. Bartels1, M.A. Suijkerbuijk3, K. Van Langevelde4, B.J. Van Royen5, R. Geuze6, J.P. Rutges7, E.H. Oei7, M.N. Stienen8, G. Fischer8, J. Van Goethem9, F.J. Nap1, W.S. Eppinga1, L. Jans10, B. Depreitere11, P.R. Seevinck1

  1. UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
  2. MRIguidance B.V., Utrecht, Netherlands
  3. Amphia ziekenhuis, Breda, Netherlands
  4. Amsterdam Universitair Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  5. Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  6. Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, Netherlands
  7. Erasmus Medisch Centrum, Rotterdam, Netherlands
  8. HOCH Health Ostschweiz, Kantonsspital St.Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
  9. Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
  10. UZ Gent, Gent, Belgium
  11. UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Poster 000680: Synthetic CT from Diagnostic Spine MRI: a Multi-Center Approach for Radiation-Free Bone Visualization
Abstract no.
000680
Topic
Basic Science & Economics
Session
Science Chat - Growing Spine and Basic Science
Author
T.P. Schlösser
Open full e-poster

Opens at full size in a new tab — zoom in to read the detail.

Abstract PDF

Abstract

Synthetic CT (sCT) generation from MRI promises radiation-free 3D bone visualization. Current methods are limited by single-center validation, a need for dedicated scans, or low-resolution outputs. This study aimed to develop and validate a clinically viable sCT method that overcomes these limitations by generating synthetic CT (sCT) from routine diagnostic spine MRI.

Using paired MRI/CT scans from 199 patients across nine centers spanning a wide range of spinal pathologies, anatomical regions and MRI sequences, we trained a Multi-Center Network on data from eight centers. Its performance on the unseen ninth center was compared to two benchmarks: a Single-Center Network (trained only on that center's data) and an All-Centers Network (trained on all centers’ data). This comparison was performed for the three largest centers. The sCTs’ and CTs’ intensities were compared using mean absolute error (MAE) and correlation coefficient (r) inside the vertebrae. Vertebrae were automatically segmented in the CT and sCT and evaluated using mean surface distance (mSD).

The Multi-Center Network (trained without the test center's data) performed equally to the Single-Center Network (trained with the test center’s data) in terms of MAE, r ,and mSD as shown qualitatively in Fig. 1 and quantitatively in Fig. 2. The Multi-Center Networks also achieved similar performance to the All-Centers Network with non-significant differences in 74% of comparisons and an average of 1.5% difference in metric values. This performance was consistent across different MRI scan types (T1-weighted, T2-weighted, 2D sequence, 3D sequence) and all three test centers.

A single AI model, trained on a large, diverse multicenter dataset, can successfully generate high-quality 3D sCTs from routine diagnostic MRI at new, unseen centers, performing similarly to networks trained on data from this center. Additionally, our method was capable of converting any MR (2D T1w, 2D T2w, or 3D T1w) into synthetic CT using a single network. Notably, the networks converted 2D multi-slice MR images with 3.3-4.4 mm slice spacing into (sub)millimeter resolution 3D sCTs and average vertebral surface distance of 0.65 mm. This demonstrates an important step towards radiation-free bone visualization from routine diagnostic MR scans across diverse imaging centers, supporting broader clinical and surgical applications.

Figures and tables

Figure 1: Qualitative examples of sCTs predicted by the Multi-Center Networks and Single-Center Networks per center. The MR inputs were sagittal 2D acquired sca
Figure 1: Qualitative examples of sCTs predicted by the Multi-Center Networks and Single-Center Networks per center. The MR inputs were sagittal 2D acquired scans with original slice spacings of 3.3-4.4 mm.
Figure 1: Qualitative examples of sCTs predicted by the Multi-Center Networks and Single-Center Networks per center. The MR inputs were sagittal 2D acquired sca
Figure 1: Qualitative examples of sCTs predicted by the Multi-Center Networks and Single-Center Networks per center. The MR inputs were sagittal 2D acquired scans with original slice spacings of 3.3-4.4 mm. Figure 2: Comparison of the Multi-Center Network’s and Single-Center performance. 2D/3D: 2D/3D acquired MR scan; T1w/T2w: T1/T2-weighted.

As submitted with the abstract. Tap a figure to open it at full size.