Song Soo Kim1, Joon Beom Seo2, Namkug Kim3, Eun Jin Chae3, Young Kyung Lee4, Yeon Mok Oh5, Sang Do Lee5. 1. Department of Radiology, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: seojb@amc.seoul.kr. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Republic of Korea. 5. Division of Pulmonology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the improvement of emphysema quantification with density correction and to determine the optimal site to use for air density correction on volumetric computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Seventy-eight CT scans of COPD patients (GOLD II-IV, smoking history 39.2±25.3 pack-years) were obtained from several single-vendor 16-MDCT scanners. After density measurement of aorta, tracheal- and external air, volumetric CT density correction was conducted (two reference values: air, -1,000 HU/blood, +50 HU). Using in-house software, emphysema index (EI) and mean lung density (MLD) were calculated. Differences in air densities, MLD and EI prior to and after density correction were evaluated (paired t-test). Correlation between those parameters and FEV1 and FEV1/FVC were compared (age- and sex adjusted partial correlation analysis). RESULTS: Measured densities (HU) of tracheal- and external air differed significantly (-990 ± 14, -1016 ± 9, P<0.001). MLD and EI on original CT data, after density correction using tracheal- and external air also differed significantly (MLD: -874.9 ± 27.6 vs. -882.3 ± 24.9 vs. -860.5 ± 26.6; EI: 16.8 ± 13.4 vs. 21.1 ± 14.5 vs. 9.7 ± 10.5, respectively, P<0.001). The correlation coefficients between CT quantification indices and FEV1, and FEV1/FVC increased after density correction. The tracheal air correction showed better results than the external air correction. CONCLUSION: Density correction of volumetric CT data can improve correlations of emphysema quantification and PFT.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the improvement of emphysema quantification with density correction and to determine the optimal site to use for air density correction on volumetric computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Seventy-eight CT scans of COPDpatients (GOLD II-IV, smoking history 39.2±25.3 pack-years) were obtained from several single-vendor 16-MDCT scanners. After density measurement of aorta, tracheal- and external air, volumetric CT density correction was conducted (two reference values: air, -1,000 HU/blood, +50 HU). Using in-house software, emphysema index (EI) and mean lung density (MLD) were calculated. Differences in air densities, MLD and EI prior to and after density correction were evaluated (paired t-test). Correlation between those parameters and FEV1 and FEV1/FVC were compared (age- and sex adjusted partial correlation analysis). RESULTS: Measured densities (HU) of tracheal- and external air differed significantly (-990 ± 14, -1016 ± 9, P<0.001). MLD and EI on original CT data, after density correction using tracheal- and external air also differed significantly (MLD: -874.9 ± 27.6 vs. -882.3 ± 24.9 vs. -860.5 ± 26.6; EI: 16.8 ± 13.4 vs. 21.1 ± 14.5 vs. 9.7 ± 10.5, respectively, P<0.001). The correlation coefficients between CT quantification indices and FEV1, and FEV1/FVC increased after density correction. The tracheal air correction showed better results than the external air correction. CONCLUSION: Density correction of volumetric CT data can improve correlations of emphysema quantification and PFT.
Authors: Jie Yang; Elsa D Angelini; Pallavi P Balte; Eric A Hoffman; Colin O Wu; Bharath A Venkatesh; R Graham Barr; Andrew F Laine Journal: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv Date: 2016-10-02
Authors: Gonzalo Vegas-Sánchez-Ferrero; Maria Jesus Ledesma-Carbayo; George R Washko; Raúl San José Estépar Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Olga Solyanik; Patrick Hollmann; Sabine Dettmer; Till Kaireit; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop; Frank Wacker; Jens Vogel-Claussen; Hoen-oh Shin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Frank Li; Jiwoong Choi; Chunrui Zou; John D Newell; Alejandro P Comellas; Chang Hyun Lee; Hongseok Ko; R Graham Barr; Eugene R Bleecker; Christopher B Cooper; Fereidoun Abtin; Igor Barjaktarevic; David Couper; MeiLan Han; Nadia N Hansel; Richard E Kanner; Robert Paine; Ella A Kazerooni; Fernando J Martinez; Wanda O'Neal; Stephen I Rennard; Benjamin M Smith; Prescott G Woodruff; Eric A Hoffman; Ching-Long Lin Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Jennifer L Boes; Maria Bule; Benjamin A Hoff; Ryan Chamberlain; David A Lynch; Jadranka Stojanovska; Fernando J Martinez; Meilan K Han; Ella A Kazerooni; Brian D Ross; Craig J Galbán Journal: Tomography Date: 2015-09