PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the Hounsfield unit (HU) distributions of mesothelioma and other tissues present in contrast-enhanced thoracic CT scans, to compare the HU distributions of mesothelioma, muscle, and liver by scanner and reconstruction filter/kernel combination, and to assess interpatient HU distribution variability. METHODS: The database consisted of 28 contrast-enhanced thoracic CT scans from different patients. For each scan, regions of interest were manually outlined within each of 13 tissues, including mesothelioma. For each tissue, the empirical percentiles in HU values were calculated along with the interpatient variability. The HU distributions of select tissues were compared across three different scanner and reconstruction filter/kernel combinations. RESULTS: The HU distributions of blood-containing tissues demonstrated substantial overlap, as did the HU distributions of pleural effusion, mesothelioma, muscle, and liver. The HU distribution of fat had the least overlap with the other tissues. Fat and muscle had the lowest interpatient HU variability and the narrowest HU distributions, while blood-containing tissues had the highest interpatient HU variability. A soft-tissue reconstruction filter/kernel yielded the narrowest HU distribution, and fat with artifact had the widest HU distribution. CONCLUSIONS: Characterization of tissues in CT scans enhances the understanding of those tissues' HU distributions. Due to their overlapping HU distributions and close spatial proximity to one another, separating pleural effusion, mesothelioma, muscle, and liver from one another is a difficult task based on HU value thresholding alone. The results illustrate the wide distributions and large variability that exist for tissues present in clinical thoracic CT scans.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the Hounsfield unit (HU) distributions of mesothelioma and other tissues present in contrast-enhanced thoracic CT scans, to compare the HU distributions of mesothelioma, muscle, and liver by scanner and reconstruction filter/kernel combination, and to assess interpatient HU distribution variability. METHODS: The database consisted of 28 contrast-enhanced thoracic CT scans from different patients. For each scan, regions of interest were manually outlined within each of 13 tissues, including mesothelioma. For each tissue, the empirical percentiles in HU values were calculated along with the interpatient variability. The HU distributions of select tissues were compared across three different scanner and reconstruction filter/kernel combinations. RESULTS: The HU distributions of blood-containing tissues demonstrated substantial overlap, as did the HU distributions of pleural effusion, mesothelioma, muscle, and liver. The HU distribution of fat had the least overlap with the other tissues. Fat and muscle had the lowest interpatient HU variability and the narrowest HU distributions, while blood-containing tissues had the highest interpatient HU variability. A soft-tissue reconstruction filter/kernel yielded the narrowest HU distribution, and fat with artifact had the widest HU distribution. CONCLUSIONS: Characterization of tissues in CT scans enhances the understanding of those tissues' HU distributions. Due to their overlapping HU distributions and close spatial proximity to one another, separating pleural effusion, mesothelioma, muscle, and liver from one another is a difficult task based on HU value thresholding alone. The results illustrate the wide distributions and large variability that exist for tissues present in clinical thoracic CT scans.
Authors: T Yoshizumi; T Nakamura; M Yamane; A H Islam; M Menju; K Yamasaki; T Arai; K Kotani; T Funahashi; S Yamashita; Y Matsuzawa Journal: Radiology Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Alan C Best; Anne M Lynch; Carmen M Bozic; David Miller; Gary K Grunwald; David A Lynch Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-06-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C Ricci; R Longo; E Gioulis; M Bosco; P Pollesello; F Masutti; L S Crocè; S Paoletti; B de Bernard; C Tiribelli; L Dalla Palma Journal: J Hepatol Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Kiran R Nandalur; Andrew H Hardie; Sirisha R Bollampally; Jaywant P Parmar; Klaus D Hagspiel Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Vy Bui; Sujata M Shanbhag; Oscar Levine; Matthew Jacobs; W Patricia Bandettini; Lin-Ching Chang; Marcus Y Chen; Li-Yueh Hsu Journal: IEEE Access Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Zacariah E Labby; Samuel G Armato; James J Dignam; Christopher Straus; Hedy L Kindler; Anna K Nowak Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Samuel G Armato; Kevin G Blyth; Jane J Keating; Sharyn Katz; Selina Tsim; Johan Coolen; Eyjolfur Gudmundsson; Isabelle Opitz; Anna K Nowak Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2016-09-05 Impact factor: 5.705