| Literature DB >> 28264721 |
Samuel Y Ash1, Rola Harmouche2, Diego Lassala Lopez Vallejo3, Julian A Villalba3, Kris Ostridge4, River Gunville5, Carolyn E Come3, Jorge Onieva Onieva2, James C Ross2, Gary M Hunninghake3, Souheil Y El-Chemaly3, Tracy J Doyle3, Pietro Nardelli2, Gonzalo V Sanchez-Ferrero2, Hilary J Goldberg3, Ivan O Rosas3, Raul San Jose Estepar2, George R Washko3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior studies of clinical prognostication in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) using computed tomography (CT) have often used subjective analyses or have evaluated quantitative measures in isolation. This study examined associations between both densitometric and local histogram based quantitative CT measurements with pulmonary function test (PFT) parameters and mortality. In addition, this study sought to compare risk prediction scores that incorporate quantitative CT measures with previously described systems.Entities:
Keywords: Computed tomography; Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; Imaging; Interstitial lung disease; Mortality; Quantitative
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28264721 PMCID: PMC5340000 DOI: 10.1186/s12931-017-0527-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Respir Res ISSN: 1465-9921
Fig. 1a Representative images from subjects with less severe (Patient 1) and more severe (Patient 2) visual evidence of IPF. b Histograms of distribution of the number of voxels on the y axis for each tissue density in Hounsfield Units on the x axis. c Summary statistics and selected pulmonary function test parameters for each subject. Abbreviations: mean lung density (MLD)
Fig. 2a Sample slice for CT scan of a subject. b The same sample slice from a subject CT scan showing placement of fiducials for the training of the local histogram based objective method. Abbreviations: ground glass (GG), honeycombing (Hon), reticular (Ret), computed tomography (CT)
Fig. 3a Representative CT images from subjects with less severe IPF (patient 1) and more severe IPF (patient 2). b Overlay of categorization of lung parenchyma into radiographic subtypes using the local histogram analysis and distance based analysis for each subject. c Legend for radiographic subtypes
Characteristics of the cohort
| Gender | Number | Percent |
| Male | 33 | 71.7 |
| Race | Number | Percent |
| White | 38 | 82.6 |
| Black | 2 | 4.35 |
| Asian | 3 | 6.5 |
| Hispanic | 3 | 6.5 |
| Pulmonary Function | Mean (Standard Deviation) | Median, Interquartile Range |
| FEV1 - L | 2.03 (0.69) | 2.02, [1.62, 2.45] |
| FEV1 % predicted | 64.76 (21.05) | 64, [49, 82] |
| FVC - L | 2.40 (0.86) | 2.36, [1.71, 2.91] |
| FVC % predicted | 60.17 (21.11) | 58.5, [44.0, 73.0] |
| DLCO – mL/min/mmHg | 10.40 (3.99) | 10.06, [7.75, 12.53] |
| DLCO % predicted | 39.61 (15.66) | 37.0, [30.5, 48.5] |
| Quantitative CT Measures - Densitometric | Mean (Standard Deviation) | Median, Interquartile Range |
| Mean Lung Density (HU) | -670.14 (86.24) | -680.46, [-733.31, -607.03] |
| Skewness | 1.35 (0.55) | 1.40, [1.01, 1.79] |
| Kurtosis | 5.06 (2.32) | 4.72, [3.18, 6.18] |
| Percentage of Lung Occupied by High Attenuation Area, HAA% | 17.21 (6.45) | 15.41, [12.54, 23.13] |
| Qualitative CT Measures | Mean (Standard Deviation) | Median, Interquartile Range |
| Fibrosis Score, fibrosis% | 26.89 (15.80) | 22.92, [14.17, 37.50] |
| Quantitative CT Measures - Feature Based | Mean (Standard Deviation) | Median, Interquartile Range |
| Quantitative interstitial score, interstitial% | 68.53 (18.39) | 65.75, [57.53, 81.90] |
| Percentage of Interstitial Disease Occupied by Honeycombing, Honeycombing% | 26.36 (17.19) | 21.65, [12.09, 38.04] |
Abbreviations: computed tomography (CT), diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide (DLCO), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), Hounsfield units (HU), standard deviation (SD)
Pearson correlation coefficients for quantitative CT measures and PFT measures
| CT measure | FVC % predicted | DLCO % predicted | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r | p | r | p | |
| Quantitative Densitometric | ||||
| Mean Lung Attenuation | -0.78 | <0.001 | -0.73 | <0.001 |
| Skewness | 0.76 | <0.001 | 0.73 | <0.001 |
| Kurtosis | 0.71 | <0.001 | 0.68 | <0.001 |
| Percent High Attenuating Area | -0.77 | <0.001 | -0.69 | <0.001 |
| Qualitative | ||||
| Fibrosis Score, fibrosis% | -0.64 | <0.001 | -0.7 | <0.001 |
| Quantitative Feature Based | ||||
| Quantitative Interstitial Score, interstitial% | -0.79 | <0.001 | -0.70 | <0.001 |
| Percentage of Interstitial Disease Occupied by Honeycombing, Honeycombing% | -0.66 | <0.001 | -0.66 | <0.001 |
Abbreviations: computed tomography (CT), diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide (DLCO), forced vital capacity (FVC)
Fig. 4Kaplan Meier survival curves for transplant free survival for the densitometric CT measures. a HAA%, b MLD, c skewness, d kurtosis. Abbreviations: percentage of high attenuation area (HAA%), mean lung density (MLD)
Unadjusted hazard ratios for death or transplant (A) and for death in those who did not undergo transplant (B) for measurements dichotomized at their medians
| Measurement | Hazard ratio for death or transplant | p | Hazard ratio for deatha | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantitative Densitometric | ||||
| Mean Lung Density (High vs. Low) | 3.27 | 0.006 | 5.05 | 0.015 |
| Skewness (Low vs. High) | 2.92 | 0.012 | 3.56 | 0.039 |
| Kurtosis (Low vs. High) | 4.49 | 0.001 | 4.37 | 0.013 |
| High Attenuating Area (High vs. Low) | 3.17 | 0.007 | 7.69 | 0.009 |
| Qualitative | ||||
| Fibrosis Score, fibrosis% (High vs. Low) | 3.48 | 0.003 | 3.96 | 0.026 |
| Quantitative Feature Based | ||||
| Quantitative Interstitial Score, interstitial% (High vs. Low) | 2.30 | 0.065 | 3.51 | 0.065 |
| Percentage of Interstitial Disease Occupied by Honeycombing, Honeycombing% (High vs. Low) | 3.28 | 0.014 | 2.86 | 0.094 |
| Pulmonary Function Test | ||||
| FVC percent predicted (Low vs. High) | 2.80 | 0.016 | 3.14 | 0.063 |
| DLCO percent predicted (Low vs. High) | 3.78 | 0.012 | 3.38 | 0.100 |
Abbreviations: diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide (DLCO), forced vital capacity (FVC). aIn the subgroup who did not undergo transplantation
Fig. 5Kaplan Meier survival curves for transplant free survival for the visual fibrosis score (a), the objective interstitial score (b), and the percentage of interstitial disease that was honeycombing (c)
c-Indices for continuous GAP models for prediction of transplant free survival
| Predictor | c-Index | Confidence interval |
|---|---|---|
| Diffusing Capacity, DLCO | 0.66 | 0.56, 0.75 |
| High Attenuation Area, HAA% | 0.59 | 0.50, 0.68 |
| Visual Fibrosis Score, fibrosis% | 0.69 | 0.61, 0.77 |
| Quantitative Interstitial Score, interstitial% | 0.65 | 0.54, 0.75 |
| Percentage of Interstitial Disease Occupied by Honeycombing, Honeycombing% | 0.62 | 0.52, 0.71 |