Emphysema quantification by low-dose CT: potential impact of adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of a novel reconstruction algorithm, adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing, on emphysema quantification by low-dose CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty-six patients who had undergone standard-dose (150 mAs) and low-dose (25 mAs) CT scans were included in this retrospective study. Emphysema was quantified by several quantitative measures, including emphysema index given by the percentage of lung region with low attenuation (lower than -950 HU), the 15th percentile of lung density, and size distribution of low-attenuation lung regions, on standard-dose CT images reconstructed without adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing and on low-dose CT images reconstructed both without and with adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing. The Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess whether the agreement between emphysema quantifications on low-dose CT and on standard-dose CT was improved by the use of adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing. RESULTS For the emphysema index, the mean differences between measurements on low-dose CT and on standard-dose CT were 1.98% without and -0.946% with the use of adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing. For 15th percentile of lung density, the mean differences without and with adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing were -6.67 and 1.28 HU, respectively. For the size distribution of low-attenuation lung regions, the ranges of the mean relative differences without and with adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing were 21.4-85.5% and -14.1% to 11.2%, respectively. For 15th percentile of lung density and the size distribution of low-attenuation lung regions, the agreement was thus improved by the use of adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing. CONCLUSION The use of adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing resulted in greater consistency of emphysema quantification by low-dose CT, with quantification by standard-dose CT.

[1]  Talissa A Altes,et al.  Characterization of the relation between CT technical parameters and accuracy of quantification of lung attenuation on quantitative chest CT. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  P. Gevenois,et al.  Quantitative computed tomography assessment of lung structure and function in pulmonary emphysema. , 2001, The European respiratory journal.

[3]  Bram van Ginneken,et al.  Local noise weighted filtering for emphysema scoring of low-dose CT images , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[4]  Natalie N. Braun,et al.  Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT. , 2009, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[5]  Hiroto Hatabu,et al.  Use of 3D adaptive raw-data filter in CT of the lung: effect on radiation dose reduction. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  P. Gevenois,et al.  Pulmonary emphysema: objective quantification at multi-detector row CT--comparison with macroscopic and microscopic morphometry. , 2006, Radiology.

[7]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[8]  Rebecca S Lewis,et al.  Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. , 2009, Archives of internal medicine.

[9]  Jin Hwan Kim,et al.  Comparison of standard- and low-radiation-dose CT for quantification of emphysema. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  D. Brenner,et al.  Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  Hans-Ulrich Kauczor,et al.  Multi-detector CT of the Chest: Influence of Dose Onto Quantitative Evaluation of Severe Emphysema A Simulation Study , 2006, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[12]  Thomas L Toth,et al.  Can noise reduction filters improve low-radiation-dose chest CT images? Pilot study. , 2003, Radiology.

[13]  T Isomura,et al.  Lung cancer screening: minimum tube current required for helical CT. , 2000, Radiology.

[14]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. , 2009, Archives of internal medicine.

[15]  Stephen Lam,et al.  The effects of radiation dose and CT manufacturer on measurements of lung densitometry. , 2007, Chest.

[16]  A A Bankier,et al.  Pulmonary emphysema: subjective visual grading versus objective quantification with macroscopic morphometry and thin-section CT densitometry. , 1999, Radiology.

[17]  P. Gevenois,et al.  Pulmonary emphysema: size distribution of emphysematous spaces on multidetector CT images--comparison with macroscopic and microscopic morphometry. , 2008, Radiology.

[18]  M. Kalra,et al.  Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. , 2004, Radiology.

[19]  H. Kauczor,et al.  Radiation dose reduction in chest CT: a review. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  Eric A. Hoffman,et al.  Automatic lung segmentation for accurate quantitation of volumetric X-ray CT images , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[21]  Hans-Ulrich Kauczor,et al.  Paired inspiratory/expiratory volumetric thin-slice CT scan for emphysema analysis: comparison of different quantitative evaluations and pulmonary function test. , 2005, Chest.

[22]  S. Suzuki,et al.  Correlation of quantitative CT with selective alveolobronchogram and pulmonary function tests in emphysema. , 1994, Chest.

[23]  Jin Mo Goo,et al.  Quantitative analysis of emphysema and airway measurements according to iterative reconstruction algorithms: comparison of filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and model-based iterative reconstruction , 2014, European Radiology.

[24]  Takeshi Johkoh,et al.  Reduced radiation dose helical chest CT: effect on reader evaluation of structures and lung findings. , 2004, Radiology.

[25]  Noriyuki Tomiyama,et al.  Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique for pulmonary CT: image quality of the cadaveric lung on standard- and reduced-dose CT. , 2010, Academic radiology.

[26]  N J Morrison,et al.  Quantitation of emphysema by computed tomography using a "density mask" program and correlation with pulmonary function tests. , 1990, Chest.

[27]  N. Müller,et al.  "Density mask". An objective method to quantitate emphysema using computed tomography. , 1988, Chest.

[28]  K. Murase,et al.  Quantitative and qualitative assessments of lung destruction and pulmonary functional loss from reduced-dose thin-section CT in pulmonary emphysema patients. , 2010, Academic Radiology.

[29]  Mythreyi Bhargavan,et al.  MEDICAL RADIATION EXPOSURE IN THE U.S. IN 2006: PRELIMINARY RESULTS , 2008, Health physics.

[30]  Roland Werthschützky,et al.  Automated CT image evaluation of the lung: a morphology-based concept , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[31]  Michael F McNitt-Gray,et al.  AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in CT. Radiation dose in CT. , 2002, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[32]  P De Vuyst,et al.  Comparison of computed density and macroscopic morphometry in pulmonary emphysema. , 1995, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[33]  B Suki,et al.  Complexity of terminal airspace geometry assessed by lung computed tomography in normal subjects and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.