Julien G Cohen1,2,3, Hyungjin Kim1,2, Su Bin Park1,2, Bram van Ginneken4, Gilbert R Ferretti3,5, Chang Hyun Lee1, Jin Mo Goo1,2,6, Chang Min Park7,8,9. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea. 3. Clinique Universitaire de Radiologie et Imagerie Médicale (CURIM), Université Grenoble Alpes, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble, CS 10217, 38043, Grenoble Cedex 9, France. 4. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. INSERM U 823, Institut A Bonniot, 38700, La Tronche, France. 6. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 7. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. cmpark.morphius@gmail.com. 8. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea. cmpark.morphius@gmail.com. 9. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. cmpark.morphius@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the differences between filtered back projection (FBP) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) algorithms on semi-automatic measurements in subsolid nodules (SSNs). METHODS: Unenhanced CT scans of 73 SSNs obtained using the same protocol and reconstructed with both FBP and MBIR algorithms were evaluated by two radiologists. Diameter, mean attenuation, mass and volume of whole nodules and their solid components were measured. Intra- and interobserver variability and differences between FBP and MBIR were then evaluated using Bland-Altman method and Wilcoxon tests. RESULTS: Longest diameter, volume and mass of nodules and those of their solid components were significantly higher using MBIR (p < 0.05) with mean differences of 1.1% (limits of agreement, -6.4 to 8.5%), 3.2% (-20.9 to 27.3%) and 2.9% (-16.9 to 22.7%) and 3.2% (-20.5 to 27%), 6.3% (-51.9 to 64.6%), 6.6% (-50.1 to 63.3%), respectively. The limits of agreement between FBP and MBIR were within the range of intra- and interobserver variability for both algorithms with respect to the diameter, volume and mass of nodules and their solid components. There were no significant differences in intra- or interobserver variability between FBP and MBIR (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Semi-automatic measurements of SSNs significantly differed between FBP and MBIR; however, the differences were within the range of measurement variability. KEY POINTS: • Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of measurements did not differ between FBP and MBIR. • Differences in SSNs' semi-automatic measurement induced by reconstruction algorithms were not clinically significant. • Semi-automatic measurement may be conducted regardless of reconstruction algorithm. • SSNs' semi-automated classification agreement (pure vs. part-solid) did not significantly differ between algorithms.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the differences between filtered back projection (FBP) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) algorithms on semi-automatic measurements in subsolid nodules (SSNs). METHODS: Unenhanced CT scans of 73 SSNs obtained using the same protocol and reconstructed with both FBP and MBIR algorithms were evaluated by two radiologists. Diameter, mean attenuation, mass and volume of whole nodules and their solid components were measured. Intra- and interobserver variability and differences between FBP and MBIR were then evaluated using Bland-Altman method and Wilcoxon tests. RESULTS: Longest diameter, volume and mass of nodules and those of their solid components were significantly higher using MBIR (p < 0.05) with mean differences of 1.1% (limits of agreement, -6.4 to 8.5%), 3.2% (-20.9 to 27.3%) and 2.9% (-16.9 to 22.7%) and 3.2% (-20.5 to 27%), 6.3% (-51.9 to 64.6%), 6.6% (-50.1 to 63.3%), respectively. The limits of agreement between FBP and MBIR were within the range of intra- and interobserver variability for both algorithms with respect to the diameter, volume and mass of nodules and their solid components. There were no significant differences in intra- or interobserver variability between FBP and MBIR (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Semi-automatic measurements of SSNs significantly differed between FBP and MBIR; however, the differences were within the range of measurement variability. KEY POINTS: • Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of measurements did not differ between FBP and MBIR. • Differences in SSNs' semi-automatic measurement induced by reconstruction algorithms were not clinically significant. • Semi-automatic measurement may be conducted regardless of reconstruction algorithm. • SSNs' semi-automated classification agreement (pure vs. part-solid) did not significantly differ between algorithms.
Authors: Dag Wormanns; Gerhard Kohl; Ernst Klotz; Anke Marheine; Florian Beyer; Walter Heindel; Stefan Diederich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-11-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sarah J van Riel; Clara I Sánchez; Alexander A Bankier; David P Naidich; Johnny Verschakelen; Ernst T Scholten; Pim A de Jong; Colin Jacobs; Eva van Rikxoort; Liesbeth Peters-Bax; Miranda Snoeren; Mathias Prokop; Bram van Ginneken; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-05-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yong Sub Song; Chang Min Park; Sang Joon Park; Sang Min Lee; Yoon Kyung Jeon; Jin Mo Goo Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-06-14 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: Kelsey B Mathieu; Hua Ai; Patricia S Fox; Myrna Cobos Barco Godoy; Reginald F Munden; Patricia M de Groot; Tinsu Pan Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 2.102