OBJECTIVES: The reproducibilities of CT lung volume and densitometric measures of emphysema were assessed over 1 week. The influence of breathhold on reproducibility was assessed. METHODS: HRCT was performed on 44 subjects at inspiration on two visits with a 7-day interval. CT lung volume, relative area below -950HU (RA950-raw), and 15th percentile density (PD15-raw) were computed. Volume correction was used to obtain RA950-adj and PD15-adj. Reproducibilities between visits were assessed using concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and repeatability coefficient (RC). Reproducibilities were compared between raw and adjusted measures. Differences between visits were computed for volume and density measures. Correlations were computed for density differences versus volume difference. Subgroup analysis was performed using a 0.25 L volume difference threshold. RESULTS: High CCC were observed for all measures in full group (CCC > 0.97). Reproducibilities of volume (RC = 0.67 L), RA950-raw (RC = 2.3%), and PD15-raw (RC = 10.6HU) were observed. Volume correction significantly improved PD15 (RC = 3.6HU) but not RA950 (RC = 1.7%). RA950-raw and PD15-raw had significantly better RC in <0.25 L subgroup than ≥0.25 L. Significant correlations with volume were observed for RA950-raw and PD15-raw (R (2) > 0.71), but not RA950-adj or PD15-adj (R (2) < 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Good breathhold and RA950 reproducibilities were achieved. PD15 was less reproducible but improved with volume correction or superior breathhold reproduction. KEY POINTS: • Good breath-hold reproducibility is achievable between multiple CT examinations. • Reproducibility of densitometric measures may be improved by statistical volume correction. • Volume correction may result in decreased signal. • Densitometric reproducibility may also be improved by achieving good breath-hold reproduction. • Careful consideration of signal and noise is necessary in reproducibility assessment.
OBJECTIVES: The reproducibilities of CT lung volume and densitometric measures of emphysema were assessed over 1 week. The influence of breathhold on reproducibility was assessed. METHODS: HRCT was performed on 44 subjects at inspiration on two visits with a 7-day interval. CT lung volume, relative area below -950HU (RA950-raw), and 15th percentile density (PD15-raw) were computed. Volume correction was used to obtain RA950-adj and PD15-adj. Reproducibilities between visits were assessed using concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and repeatability coefficient (RC). Reproducibilities were compared between raw and adjusted measures. Differences between visits were computed for volume and density measures. Correlations were computed for density differences versus volume difference. Subgroup analysis was performed using a 0.25 L volume difference threshold. RESULTS: High CCC were observed for all measures in full group (CCC > 0.97). Reproducibilities of volume (RC = 0.67 L), RA950-raw (RC = 2.3%), and PD15-raw (RC = 10.6HU) were observed. Volume correction significantly improved PD15 (RC = 3.6HU) but not RA950 (RC = 1.7%). RA950-raw and PD15-raw had significantly better RC in <0.25 L subgroup than ≥0.25 L. Significant correlations with volume were observed for RA950-raw and PD15-raw (R (2) > 0.71), but not RA950-adj or PD15-adj (R (2) < 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Good breathhold and RA950 reproducibilities were achieved. PD15 was less reproducible but improved with volume correction or superior breathhold reproduction. KEY POINTS: • Good breath-hold reproducibility is achievable between multiple CT examinations. • Reproducibility of densitometric measures may be improved by statistical volume correction. • Volume correction may result in decreased signal. • Densitometric reproducibility may also be improved by achieving good breath-hold reproduction. • Careful consideration of signal and noise is necessary in reproducibility assessment.
Authors: A Dirksen; J H Dijkman; F Madsen; B Stoel; D C Hutchison; C S Ulrik; L T Skovgaard; A Kok-Jensen; A Rudolphus; N Seersholm; H A Vrooman; J H Reiber; N C Hansen; T Heckscher; K Viskum; J Stolk Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: H O Coxson; P V Nasute Fauerbach; C Storness-Bliss; N L Müller; S Cogswell; D H Dillard; C L Finger; S C Springmeyer Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2008-08-06 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: M S Brown; M F McNitt-Gray; N J Mankovich; J G Goldin; J Hiller; L S Wilson; D R Aberle Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Huaiyu Heather Chen-Mayer; Matthew K Fuld; Bernice Hoppel; Philip F Judy; Jered P Sieren; Junfeng Guo; David A Lynch; Antonio Possolo; Sean B Fain Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Stefan F Nemec; Francesco Molinari; Valerie Dufresne; Natacha Gosset; Mario Silva; Alexander A Bankier Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-01-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Felix G Meinel; Felix Schwab; Simone Schleede; Martin Bech; Julia Herzen; Klaus Achterhold; Sigrid Auweter; Fabian Bamberg; Ali Ö Yildirim; Alexander Bohla; Oliver Eickelberg; Rod Loewen; Martin Gifford; Ronald Ruth; Maximilian F Reiser; Franz Pfeiffer; Konstantin Nikolaou Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Charles R Hatt; Andrea S Oh; Nancy A Obuchowski; Jean-Paul Charbonnier; David A Lynch; Stephen M Humphries Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2021-04-22
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
Authors: Reza Karimi; Göran Tornling; Helena Forsslund; Mikael Mikko; Åsa M Wheelock; Sven Nyrén; Carl Magnus Sköld Journal: Respir Res Date: 2014-02-24
Authors: Stephanus T Malherbe; Patrick Dupont; Ilse Kant; Petri Ahlers; Magdalena Kriel; André G Loxton; Ray Y Chen; Laura E Via; Friedrich Thienemann; Robert J Wilkinson; Clifton E Barry; Stephanie Griffith-Richards; Annare Ellman; Katharina Ronacher; Jill Winter; Gerhard Walzl; James M Warwick Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 3.138