Cross Modality Image Translation In Medical Imaging Using Generative Frameworks

TL;DR

This study provides a comprehensive, standardized comparison of 3D medical image translation models across multiple clinical tasks, revealing GANs outperform latent models and that synthetic images are often indistinguishable from real ones.

Contribution

It introduces a reproducible evaluation framework for 3D I2I translation, comparing seven models across diverse datasets and clinical scenarios.

Findings

GANs outperform latent models in all tasks.

SRGAN achieves statistically significant better results.

Physicians struggle to distinguish real from synthetic images.

Abstract

Medical image-to-image (I2I) translation enables virtual scanning, i.e. the synthesis of a target imaging modality from a source one without additional acquisitions. Despite growing interest, most proposed methods operate on 2D slices, are evaluated on isolated tasks with different experimental set-ups and lack clinical validation. The primary contribution of this work is a reproducible, standardized comparative evaluation of 3D I2I translation methods in oncological imaging, designed to standardize preprocessing, splitting, inference, and multi-level evaluation across heterogeneous clinical tasks. Within this framework, we compare seven generative models, three Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs: Pix2Pix, CycleGAN, SRGAN) and four latent generative models (Latent Diffusion Model, Latent Diffusion Model+ControlNet, Brownian Bridge, Flow Matching), across eleven datasets spanning three anatomical regions (head/neck, lung, pelvis) and four translation directions (cone-beam CT to CT, MRI to CT, CT to PET, MRI T2-weighted to T2-FLAIR), for a total of 77 experiments under uniform training, inference, and evaluation conditions. The results show that GANs outperform latent generative models across all tasks, with SRGAN achieving statistically significant superiority. Our lesion-level analysis reveals that all models struggle with small lesions and that, in CT to PET synthesis, models reproduce lesion shape more reliably than absolute uptake-related intensity. We also performed a Visual Turing test administered to 17 physicians, including 15 radiologists, which shows near-chance classification accuracy (56.7%), confirming that synthetic volumes are largely indistinguishable from real acquisitions, while exposing a dissociation between quantitative metrics and clinical preference.