Tokihiro Yamamoto1, Sven Kabus2, Cristian Lorenz2, Erik Mittra3, Julian C Hong4, Melody Chung4, Neville Eclov4, Jacqueline To4, Maximilian Diehn4, Billy W Loo4, Paul J Keall5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. Electronic address: toyamamoto@ucdavis.edu. 2. Department of Digital Imaging, Philips Research Europe, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Departments of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 5. Radiation Physics Laboratory, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 4-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT)-based pulmonary ventilation imaging is an emerging functional imaging modality. The purpose of this study was to investigate the physiological significance of 4D-CT ventilation imaging by comparison with pulmonary function test (PFT) measurements and single-photon emission CT (SPECT) ventilation images, which are the clinical references for global and regional lung function, respectively. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In an institutional review board-approved prospective clinical trial, 4D-CT imaging and PFT and/or SPECT ventilation imaging were performed in thoracic cancer patients. Regional ventilation (V4DCT) was calculated by deformable image registration of 4D-CT images and quantitative analysis for regional volume change. V4DCT defect parameters were compared with the PFT measurements (forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; % predicted) and FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC; %). V4DCT was also compared with SPECT ventilation (VSPECT) to (1) test whether V4DCT in VSPECT defect regions is significantly lower than in nondefect regions by using the 2-tailed t test; (2) to quantify the spatial overlap between V4DCT and VSPECT defect regions with Dice similarity coefficient (DSC); and (3) to test ventral-to-dorsal gradients by using the 2-tailed t test. RESULTS: Of 21 patients enrolled in the study, 18 patients for whom 4D-CT and either PFT or SPECT were acquired were included in the analysis. V4DCT defect parameters were found to have significant, moderate correlations with PFT measurements. For example, V4DCT(HU) defect volume increased significantly with decreasing FEV1/FVC (R=-0.65, P<.01). V4DCT in VSPECT defect regions was significantly lower than in nondefect regions (mean V4DCT(HU) 0.049 vs 0.076, P<.01). The average DSCs for the spatial overlap with SPECT ventilation defect regions were only moderate (V4DCT(HU)0.39 ± 0.11). Furthermore, ventral-to-dorsal gradients of V4DCT were strong (V4DCT(HU) R(2) = 0.69, P=.08), which was similar to VSPECT (R(2) = 0.96, P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: An 18-patient study demonstrated significant correlations between 4D-CT ventilation and PFT measurements as well as SPECT ventilation, providing evidence toward the validation of 4D-CT ventilation imaging.
PURPOSE: 4-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT)-based pulmonary ventilation imaging is an emerging functional imaging modality. The purpose of this study was to investigate the physiological significance of 4D-CT ventilation imaging by comparison with pulmonary function test (PFT) measurements and single-photon emission CT (SPECT) ventilation images, which are the clinical references for global and regional lung function, respectively. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In an institutional review board-approved prospective clinical trial, 4D-CT imaging and PFT and/or SPECT ventilation imaging were performed in thoracic cancerpatients. Regional ventilation (V4DCT) was calculated by deformable image registration of 4D-CT images and quantitative analysis for regional volume change. V4DCT defect parameters were compared with the PFT measurements (forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; % predicted) and FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC; %). V4DCT was also compared with SPECT ventilation (VSPECT) to (1) test whether V4DCT in VSPECT defect regions is significantly lower than in nondefect regions by using the 2-tailed t test; (2) to quantify the spatial overlap between V4DCT and VSPECT defect regions with Dice similarity coefficient (DSC); and (3) to test ventral-to-dorsal gradients by using the 2-tailed t test. RESULTS: Of 21 patients enrolled in the study, 18 patients for whom 4D-CT and either PFT or SPECT were acquired were included in the analysis. V4DCT defect parameters were found to have significant, moderate correlations with PFT measurements. For example, V4DCT(HU) defect volume increased significantly with decreasing FEV1/FVC (R=-0.65, P<.01). V4DCT in VSPECT defect regions was significantly lower than in nondefect regions (mean V4DCT(HU) 0.049 vs 0.076, P<.01). The average DSCs for the spatial overlap with SPECT ventilation defect regions were only moderate (V4DCT(HU)0.39 ± 0.11). Furthermore, ventral-to-dorsal gradients of V4DCT were strong (V4DCT(HU) R(2) = 0.69, P=.08), which was similar to VSPECT (R(2) = 0.96, P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: An 18-patient study demonstrated significant correlations between 4D-CT ventilation and PFT measurements as well as SPECT ventilation, providing evidence toward the validation of 4D-CT ventilation imaging.
Authors: H U Kauczor; K Markstaller; M Puderbach; J Lill; B Eberle; G Hanisch; T Grossmann; C P Heussel; W Schreiber; M Thelen Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Johan Petersson; Malin Rohdin; Alejandro Sánchez-Crespo; Sven Nyrén; Hans Jacobsson; Stig A Larsson; Sten G E Lindahl; Dag Linnarsson; Blazej Neradilek; Nayak L Polissar; Robb W Glenny; Margareta Mure Journal: Respir Physiol Neurobiol Date: 2006-11-11 Impact factor: 1.931
Authors: Joseph M Reinhardt; Kai Ding; Kunlin Cao; Gary E Christensen; Eric A Hoffman; Shalmali V Bodas Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2008-04-12 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Daniel R Simpson; Joshua D Lawson; Sameer K Nath; Brent S Rose; Arno J Mundt; Loren K Mell Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Grzegorz Bauman; Ulf Lützen; Mathias Ullrich; Thomas Gaass; Julien Dinkel; Gunnar Elke; Patrick Meybohm; Inéz Frerichs; Beata Hoffmann; Jan Borggrefe; Hans-Christian Knuth; Jasper Schupp; Hermann Prüm; Monika Eichinger; Michael Puderbach; Jürgen Biederer; Christian Hintze Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Lindsay Mathew; Andrew Wheatley; Richard Castillo; Edward Castillo; George Rodrigues; Thomas Guerrero; Grace Parraga Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Shuanghu Tiger Yuan; Kirk A Frey; Milton D Gross; James A Hayman; Doug Arenberg; Xu-Wei Cai; Nithya Ramnath; Khaled Hassan; Jean Moran; Avraham Eisbruch; Randall K Ten Haken; Feng-Ming Spring Kong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Miranda Kirby; Sarah Svenningsen; Amir Owrangi; Andrew Wheatley; Adam Farag; Alexei Ouriadov; Giles E Santyr; Roya Etemad-Rezai; Harvey O Coxson; David G McCormack; Grace Parraga Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: John Kipritidis; Bilal A Tahir; Guillaume Cazoulat; Michael S Hofman; Shankar Siva; Jason Callahan; Nicholas Hardcastle; Tokihiro Yamamoto; Gary E Christensen; Joseph M Reinhardt; Noriyuki Kadoya; Taylor J Patton; Sarah E Gerard; Isabella Duarte; Ben Archibald-Heeren; Mikel Byrne; Rick Sims; Scott Ramsay; Jeremy T Booth; Enid Eslick; Fiona Hegi-Johnson; Henry C Woodruff; Rob H Ireland; Jim M Wild; Jing Cai; John E Bayouth; Kristy Brock; Paul J Keall Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Douglas Brennan; Leah Schubert; Quentin Diot; Richard Castillo; Edward Castillo; Thomas Guerrero; Mary K Martel; Derek Linderman; Laurie E Gaspar; Moyed Miften; Brian D Kavanagh; Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eunsin Lee; Jing Zeng; Robert S Miyaoka; Jatinder Saini; Paul E Kinahan; George A Sandison; Tony Wong; Hubert J Vesselle; Ramesh Rengan; Stephen R Bowen Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy; Chad G Rusthoven; Leah Schubert; Bernard Jones; Austin Faught; Richard Castillo; Edward Castillo; Laurie E Gaspar; Jennifer Kwak; Timothy Waxweiler; Michele Dougherty; Dexiang Gao; Craig Stevens; Moyed Miften; Brian Kavanagh; Thomas Guerrero; Inga Grills Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tokihiro Yamamoto; Sven Kabus; Matthieu Bal; Karl Bzdusek; Paul J Keall; Cari Wright; Stanley H Benedict; Megan E Daly Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 7.038