OBJECTIVES: To compare the pulmonary subsolid nodule (SSN) classification agreement and measurement variability between filtered back projection (FBP) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR). METHODS: Low-dose CTs were reconstructed using FBP and MBIR for 47 patients with 47 SSNs. Two readers independently classified SSNs into pure or part-solid ground-glass nodules, and measured the size of the whole nodule and solid portion twice on both reconstruction algorithms. Nodule classification agreement was analyzed using Cohen's kappa and compared between reconstruction algorithms using McNemar's test. Measurement variability was investigated using Bland-Altman analysis and compared with the paired t-test. RESULTS: Cohen's kappa for inter-reader SSN classification agreement was 0.541-0.662 on FBP and 0.778-0.866 on MBIR. Between the two readers, nodule classification was consistent in 79.8 % (75/94) with FBP and 91.5 % (86/94) with MBIR (p = 0.027). Inter-reader measurement variability range was -5.0-2.1 mm on FBP and -3.3-1.8 mm on MBIR for whole nodule size, and was -6.5-0.9 mm on FBP and -5.5-1.5 mm on MBIR for solid portion size. Inter-reader measurement differences were significantly smaller on MBIR (p = 0.027, whole nodule; p = 0.011, solid portion). CONCLUSIONS: MBIR significantly improved SSN classification agreement and reduced measurement variability of both whole nodules and solid portions between readers. KEY POINTS: • Low-dose CT using MBIR algorithm improves reproducibility in the classification of SSNs. • MBIR would enable more confident clinical planning according to the SSN type. • Reduced measurement variability on MBIR allows earlier detection of potentially malignant nodules.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the pulmonary subsolid nodule (SSN) classification agreement and measurement variability between filtered back projection (FBP) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR). METHODS: Low-dose CTs were reconstructed using FBP and MBIR for 47 patients with 47 SSNs. Two readers independently classified SSNs into pure or part-solid ground-glass nodules, and measured the size of the whole nodule and solid portion twice on both reconstruction algorithms. Nodule classification agreement was analyzed using Cohen's kappa and compared between reconstruction algorithms using McNemar's test. Measurement variability was investigated using Bland-Altman analysis and compared with the paired t-test. RESULTS: Cohen's kappa for inter-reader SSN classification agreement was 0.541-0.662 on FBP and 0.778-0.866 on MBIR. Between the two readers, nodule classification was consistent in 79.8 % (75/94) with FBP and 91.5 % (86/94) with MBIR (p = 0.027). Inter-reader measurement variability range was -5.0-2.1 mm on FBP and -3.3-1.8 mm on MBIR for whole nodule size, and was -6.5-0.9 mm on FBP and -5.5-1.5 mm on MBIR for solid portion size. Inter-reader measurement differences were significantly smaller on MBIR (p = 0.027, whole nodule; p = 0.011, solid portion). CONCLUSIONS: MBIR significantly improved SSN classification agreement and reduced measurement variability of both whole nodules and solid portions between readers. KEY POINTS: • Low-dose CT using MBIR algorithm improves reproducibility in the classification of SSNs. • MBIR would enable more confident clinical planning according to the SSN type. • Reduced measurement variability on MBIR allows earlier detection of potentially malignant nodules.
Authors: Varut Vardhanabhuti; Robert J Loader; Grant R Mitchell; Richard D Riordan; Carl A Roobottom Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Chang Min Park; Jin Mo Goo; Hyun Ju Lee; Chang Hyun Lee; Eun Ju Chun; Jung-Gi Im Journal: Radiographics Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: John H M Austin; Kavita Garg; Denise Aberle; David Yankelevitz; Keiko Kuriyama; Hyun-Ju Lee; Elisabeth Brambilla; William D Travis Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David P Naidich; Alexander A Bankier; Heber MacMahon; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop; Massimo Pistolesi; Jin Mo Goo; Paolo Macchiarini; James D Crapo; Christian J Herold; John H Austin; William D Travis Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Cristiano Rampinelli; Daniela Origgi; Vittoria Vecchi; Luigi Funicelli; Sara Raimondi; Paul Deak; Massimo Bellomi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-02-06 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Julien G Cohen; Hyungjin Kim; Su Bin Park; Bram van Ginneken; Gilbert R Ferretti; Chang Hyun Lee; Jin Mo Goo; Chang Min Park Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hyungjin Kim; Chang Min Park; Yong Sub Song; Leonard Sunwoo; Ye Ra Choi; Jung Im Kim; Jae Hyun Kim; Jae Seok Bae; Jong Hyuk Lee; Jin Mo Goo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Cristina T Dodge; Eric P Tamm; Dianna D Cody; Xinming Liu; Corey T Jensen; Wei Wei; Vikas Kundra; X John Rong Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 2.102