OBJECTIVE: To quantify different emphysema evolution in current and former smokers. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed low-dose computed tomography scans from a lung cancer screening study of 59 current and 75 former smokers. The quantitative emphysema analysis was performed using a home-built software (YACTA version 0.9), yielding the parameters lung volume, emphysema volume (EV), emphysema index (EI), mean lung density, and 15th percentile. RESULTS: The baseline EV and EI were significantly different (median EVformer =422 mL vs EVcurrent =249 mL, P = 0.0003; and median EIformer =7.6 % vs EIcurrent =4.1 %, P = 0.0001, respectively). On the annual repeat scan, the median EI and EV for former smokers had decreased significantly (ΔEIformer = -0.257%, P = 0.004; and ΔEVcurrent = -0.203 mL, P = 0.020), whereas there was no emphysema change in current smokers. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to demonstrate different emphysema evolution in current versus former smokers; emphysema parameters decreased in the former smokers and remained stable in current smokers.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify different emphysema evolution in current and former smokers. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed low-dose computed tomography scans from a lung cancer screening study of 59 current and 75 former smokers. The quantitative emphysema analysis was performed using a home-built software (YACTA version 0.9), yielding the parameters lung volume, emphysema volume (EV), emphysema index (EI), mean lung density, and 15th percentile. RESULTS: The baseline EV and EI were significantly different (median EVformer =422 mL vs EVcurrent =249 mL, P = 0.0003; and median EIformer =7.6 % vs EIcurrent =4.1 %, P = 0.0001, respectively). On the annual repeat scan, the median EI and EV for former smokers had decreased significantly (ΔEIformer = -0.257%, P = 0.004; and ΔEVcurrent = -0.203 mL, P = 0.020), whereas there was no emphysema change in current smokers. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to demonstrate different emphysema evolution in current versus former smokers; emphysema parameters decreased in the former smokers and remained stable in current smokers.
Authors: Shoshana B Ginsburg; Jason Zhao; Stephen Humphries; Sungshick Jou; Kunihiro Yagihashi; David A Lynch; Joyce D Schroeder Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Onno M Mets; Ivana Isgum; Christian P Mol; Hester A Gietema; Pieter Zanen; Mathias Prokop; Pim A de Jong Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-14 Impact factor: 5.315