Douglas Brennan1, Leah Schubert2, Quentin Diot2, Richard Castillo3, Edward Castillo4, Thomas Guerrero4, Mary K Martel5, Derek Linderman2, Laurie E Gaspar2, Moyed Miften2, Brian D Kavanagh2, Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy6. 1. University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan. 5. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. Electronic address: yevgeniy.vinogradskiy@ucdenver.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A new form of functional imaging has been proposed in the form of 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) ventilation. Because 4DCTs are acquired as part of routine care for lung cancer patients, calculating ventilation maps from 4DCTs provides spatial lung function information without added dosimetric or monetary cost to the patient. Before 4DCT-ventilation is implemented it needs to be clinically validated. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) provide a clinically established way of evaluating lung function. The purpose of our work was to perform a clinical validation by comparing 4DCT-ventilation metrics with PFT data. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ninety-eight lung cancer patients with pretreatment 4DCT and PFT data were included in the study. Pulmonary function test metrics used to diagnose obstructive lung disease were recorded: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and FEV1/forced vital capacity. Four-dimensional CT data sets and spatial registration were used to compute 4DCT-ventilation images using a density change-based and a Jacobian-based model. The ventilation maps were reduced to single metrics intended to reflect the degree of ventilation obstruction. Specifically, we computed the coefficient of variation (SD/mean), ventilation V20 (volume of lung ≤20% ventilation), and correlated the ventilation metrics with PFT data. Regression analysis was used to determine whether 4DCT ventilation data could predict for normal versus abnormal lung function using PFT thresholds. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients comparing 4DCT-ventilation with PFT data ranged from 0.63 to 0.72, with the best agreement between FEV1 and coefficient of variation. Four-dimensional CT ventilation metrics were able to significantly delineate between clinically normal versus abnormal PFT results. CONCLUSIONS: Validation of 4DCT ventilation with clinically relevant metrics is essential. We demonstrate good global agreement between PFTs and 4DCT-ventilation, indicating that 4DCT-ventilation provides a reliable assessment of lung function. Four-dimensional CT ventilation enables exciting opportunities to assess lung function and create functional avoidance radiation therapy plans. The present work provides supporting evidence for the integration of 4DCT-ventilation into clinical trials.
PURPOSE: A new form of functional imaging has been proposed in the form of 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) ventilation. Because 4DCTs are acquired as part of routine care for lung cancerpatients, calculating ventilation maps from 4DCTs provides spatial lung function information without added dosimetric or monetary cost to the patient. Before 4DCT-ventilation is implemented it needs to be clinically validated. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) provide a clinically established way of evaluating lung function. The purpose of our work was to perform a clinical validation by comparing 4DCT-ventilation metrics with PFT data. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ninety-eight lung cancerpatients with pretreatment 4DCT and PFT data were included in the study. Pulmonary function test metrics used to diagnose obstructive lung disease were recorded: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and FEV1/forced vital capacity. Four-dimensional CT data sets and spatial registration were used to compute 4DCT-ventilation images using a density change-based and a Jacobian-based model. The ventilation maps were reduced to single metrics intended to reflect the degree of ventilation obstruction. Specifically, we computed the coefficient of variation (SD/mean), ventilation V20 (volume of lung ≤20% ventilation), and correlated the ventilation metrics with PFT data. Regression analysis was used to determine whether 4DCT ventilation data could predict for normal versus abnormal lung function using PFT thresholds. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients comparing 4DCT-ventilation with PFT data ranged from 0.63 to 0.72, with the best agreement between FEV1 and coefficient of variation. Four-dimensional CT ventilation metrics were able to significantly delineate between clinically normal versus abnormal PFT results. CONCLUSIONS: Validation of 4DCT ventilation with clinically relevant metrics is essential. We demonstrate good global agreement between PFTs and 4DCT-ventilation, indicating that 4DCT-ventilation provides a reliable assessment of lung function. Four-dimensional CT ventilation enables exciting opportunities to assess lung function and create functional avoidance radiation therapy plans. The present work provides supporting evidence for the integration of 4DCT-ventilation into clinical trials.
Authors: Brian P Yaremko; Thomas M Guerrero; Josue Noyola-Martinez; Rudy Guerra; David G Lege; Linda T Nguyen; Peter A Balter; James D Cox; Ritsuko Komaki Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-03-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tokihiro Yamamoto; Sven Kabus; Cristian Lorenz; Erik Mittra; Julian C Hong; Melody Chung; Neville Eclov; Jacqueline To; Maximilian Diehn; Billy W Loo; Paul J Keall Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Juliane Szkitsak; Andre Karius; Christian Hofmann; Rainer Fietkau; Christoph Bert; Stefan Speer Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-06-24
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