PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare the influence of different reconstruction algorithms on quantitative emphysema analysis in patients with severe emphysema. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients suffering from severe emphysema were included in the study. All patients underwent inspiratory MDCT (Aquilion-16, slice thickness 1/0.8mm). The raw data were reconstructed using six different algorithms: bone kernel with beam hardening correction (BHC), soft tissue kernel with BHC; standard soft tissue kernel, smooth soft tissue kernel (internal reference standard), standard lung kernel, and high-convolution kernel. The only difference between image data sets was the algorithm employed to reconstruct the raw data, no additional radiation was required. CT data were analysed using self-written emphysema detection and quantification software providing lung volume, emphysema volume (EV), emphysema index (EI) and mean lung density (MLD). RESULTS: The use of kernels with BHC led to a significant decrease in MLD (5%) and EI (61-79%) in comparison with kernels without BHC. The absolute difference (from smooth soft tissue kernel) in MLD ranged from -0.6 to -6.1 HU and were significant different for all kernels. The EV showed absolute differences between -0.05 and -0.4 L and was significantly different for all kernels. The EI showed absolute differences between -0.8 and -5.1 and was significantly different for all kernels. CONCLUSION: The use of kernels with BHC led to a significant decrease in MLD and EI. The absolute differences between different kernels without BHC were small but they were larger than the known interscan variation in patients. Thus, for follow-up examinations the same reconstruction algorithm has to be used and use of BHC has to be avoided.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare the influence of different reconstruction algorithms on quantitative emphysema analysis in patients with severe emphysema. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients suffering from severe emphysema were included in the study. All patients underwent inspiratory MDCT (Aquilion-16, slice thickness 1/0.8mm). The raw data were reconstructed using six different algorithms: bone kernel with beam hardening correction (BHC), soft tissue kernel with BHC; standard soft tissue kernel, smooth soft tissue kernel (internal reference standard), standard lung kernel, and high-convolution kernel. The only difference between image data sets was the algorithm employed to reconstruct the raw data, no additional radiation was required. CT data were analysed using self-written emphysema detection and quantification software providing lung volume, emphysema volume (EV), emphysema index (EI) and mean lung density (MLD). RESULTS: The use of kernels with BHC led to a significant decrease in MLD (5%) and EI (61-79%) in comparison with kernels without BHC. The absolute difference (from smooth soft tissue kernel) in MLD ranged from -0.6 to -6.1 HU and were significant different for all kernels. The EV showed absolute differences between -0.05 and -0.4 L and was significantly different for all kernels. The EI showed absolute differences between -0.8 and -5.1 and was significantly different for all kernels. CONCLUSION: The use of kernels with BHC led to a significant decrease in MLD and EI. The absolute differences between different kernels without BHC were small but they were larger than the known interscan variation in patients. Thus, for follow-up examinations the same reconstruction algorithm has to be used and use of BHC has to be avoided.
Authors: Miranda Kirby; Charles Hatt; Nancy Obuchowski; Stephen M Humphries; Jered Sieren; David A Lynch; Sean B Fain Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Seth T Bartel; Andrew J Bierhals; Thomas K Pilgram; Cheng Hong; Kenneth B Schechtman; Susan H Conradi; David S Gierada Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: David S Gierada; Jason C Woods; Richard E Jacob; Andrew J Bierhals; Cliff K Choong; Seth T Bartel; Yulin V Chang; Nitin A Das; Cheng Hong; Barbara A Lutey; Jon H Ritter; Thomas K Pilgram; Joel D Cooper; G Alexander Patterson; Richard J Battafarano; Bryan F Meyers; Dmitriy A Yablonskiy; Mark S Conradi Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: David A Lynch; John H M Austin; James C Hogg; Philippe A Grenier; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Alexander A Bankier; R Graham Barr; Thomas V Colby; Jeffrey R Galvin; Pierre Alain Gevenois; Harvey O Coxson; Eric A Hoffman; John D Newell; Massimo Pistolesi; Edwin K Silverman; James D Crapo Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C P Heussel; F J F Herth; J Kappes; R Hantusch; S Hartlieb; O Weinheimer; H U Kauczor; R Eberhardt Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Tsuneo Yamashiro; Shin Matsuoka; Brian J Bartholmai; Raúl San José Estépar; James C Ross; Alejandro Diaz; Sadayuki Murayama; Edwin K Silverman; Hiroto Hatabu; George R Washko Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-01-12 Impact factor: 3.173