Marios A Gavrielides1, Benjamin P Berman2, Mark Supanich3, Kurt Schultz4, Qin Li1, Nicholas Petrick1, Rongping Zeng1, Jenifer Siegelman5. 1. Division of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, , Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. 2. Division of Radiological Health, Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Toshiba Medical Research Institute USA, Inc., Center for Medical Research and Development, Illinois, USA. 5. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachussetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess the volumetric measurement of small (≤1 cm) nonsolid nodules with computed tomography (CT), focusing on the interaction of state of the art iterative reconstruction (IR) methods and dose with nodule densities, sizes, and shapes. METHODS: Twelve synthetic nodules [5 and 10 mm in diameter, densities of -800, -630 and -10 Hounsfield units (HU), spherical and spiculated shapes] were scanned within an anthropomorphic phantom. Dose [computed tomography scan dose index (CTDIvol)] ranged from standard (4.1 mGy) to below screening levels (0.3 mGy). Data was reconstructed using filtered back-projection and two state-of-the-art IR methods (adaptive and model-based). Measurements were extracted with a previously validated matched filter-based estimator. Analysis of accuracy and precision was based on evaluation of percent bias (PB) and the repeatability coefficient (RC) respectively. RESULTS: Density had the most important effect on measurement error followed by the interaction of density with nodule size. The nonsolid -630 HU nodules had high accuracy and precision at levels comparable to solid (-10 HU) nonsolid, regardless of reconstruction method and with CTDIvol as low as 0.6 mGy. PB was <5% and <11% for the 10- and 5-mm in nominal diameter -630 HU nodules respectively, and RC was <5% and <12% for the same nodules. For nonsolid -800 HU nodules, PB increased to <11% and <30% for the 10- and 5-mm nodules respectively, whereas RC increased slightly overall but varied widely across dose and reconstruction algorithms for the 5-mm nodules. Model-based IR improved measurement accuracy for the 5-mm, low-density (-800, -630 HU) nodules. For other nodules the effect of reconstruction method was small. Dose did not affect volumetric accuracy and only affected slightly the precision of 5-mm nonsolid nodules. CONCLUSIONS: Reasonable values of both accuracy and precision were achieved for volumetric measurements of all 10-mm nonsolid nodules, and for the 5-mm nodules with -630 HU or higher density, when derived from scans acquired with below screening dose levels as low as 0.6 mGy and regardless of reconstruction algorithm.
BACKGROUND: To assess the volumetric measurement of small (≤1 cm) nonsolid nodules with computed tomography (CT), focusing on the interaction of state of the art iterative reconstruction (IR) methods and dose with nodule densities, sizes, and shapes. METHODS: Twelve synthetic nodules [5 and 10 mm in diameter, densities of -800, -630 and -10 Hounsfield units (HU), spherical and spiculated shapes] were scanned within an anthropomorphic phantom. Dose [computed tomography scan dose index (CTDIvol)] ranged from standard (4.1 mGy) to below screening levels (0.3 mGy). Data was reconstructed using filtered back-projection and two state-of-the-art IR methods (adaptive and model-based). Measurements were extracted with a previously validated matched filter-based estimator. Analysis of accuracy and precision was based on evaluation of percent bias (PB) and the repeatability coefficient (RC) respectively. RESULTS: Density had the most important effect on measurement error followed by the interaction of density with nodule size. The nonsolid -630 HU nodules had high accuracy and precision at levels comparable to solid (-10 HU) nonsolid, regardless of reconstruction method and with CTDIvol as low as 0.6 mGy. PB was <5% and <11% for the 10- and 5-mm in nominal diameter -630 HU nodules respectively, and RC was <5% and <12% for the same nodules. For nonsolid -800 HU nodules, PB increased to <11% and <30% for the 10- and 5-mm nodules respectively, whereas RC increased slightly overall but varied widely across dose and reconstruction algorithms for the 5-mm nodules. Model-based IR improved measurement accuracy for the 5-mm, low-density (-800, -630 HU) nodules. For other nodules the effect of reconstruction method was small. Dose did not affect volumetric accuracy and only affected slightly the precision of 5-mm nonsolid nodules. CONCLUSIONS: Reasonable values of both accuracy and precision were achieved for volumetric measurements of all 10-mm nonsolid nodules, and for the 5-mm nodules with -630 HU or higher density, when derived from scans acquired with below screening dose levels as low as 0.6 mGy and regardless of reconstruction algorithm.
Authors: Carole A Ridge; Afra Yildirim; Phillip M Boiselle; Tomas Franquet; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop; Denis Tack; Pierre Alain Gevenois; Alexander A Bankier Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ernst Th Scholten; Colin Jacobs; Bram van Ginneken; Martin J Willemink; Jan-Martin Kuhnigk; Peter M A van Ooijen; Matthijs Oudkerk; Willem P Th M Mali; Pim A de Jong Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Stefano Young; Hyun J Grace Kim; Moe Moe Ko; War War Ko; Carlos Flores; Michael F McNitt-Gray Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Nancy A Obuchowski; Anthony P Reeves; Erich P Huang; Xiao-Feng Wang; Andrew J Buckler; Hyun J Grace Kim; Huiman X Barnhart; Edward F Jackson; Maryellen L Giger; Gene Pennello; Alicia Y Toledano; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Tatiyana V Apanasovich; Paul E Kinahan; Kyle J Myers; Dmitry B Goldgof; Daniel P Barboriak; Robert J Gillies; Lawrence H Schwartz; Daniel C Sullivan Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2014-06-11 Impact factor: 3.021