Kristoffer Ostridge1,2, Kerry Gove1,2, Karlien H W Paas1, Hannah Burke1,2, Anna Freeman1,2, Stephen Harden3, Miranda Kirby4,5, Sam Peterson4, Jered Sieren4, Chris McCrae6, Outi Vaarala6, Karl J Staples1,7, Tom M A Wilkinson1,7,2. 1. 1Clinical and Experimental Sciences and. 2. 2National Institute for Health Research Southampton Biomedical Research Centre and. 3. 3Department of Radiology, University Hospital Southampton National Health Service Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom. 4. 4VIDA Diagnostics, Coralville, Iowa. 5. 5Ryerson University, Department of Physics, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and. 6. 6AstraZeneca, Respiratory, Inflammation, and Autoimmunity, Gothenburg, Sweden. 7. 7Wessex Investigational Sciences Hub, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Rationale: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by airflow limitation, caused by emphysema and small airways disease (SAD). Computed tomography (CT) coupled with image analysis enables the quantification of these abnormalities; however, the optimum method for doing so has not been determined. Objectives: This study aims to compare two CT quantitative analysis techniques, disease probability measure (DPM) and parametric response mapping (PRM), and assess their relationship with specific physiological measures of SAD. Methods: Subjects with mild to moderate COPD, never smokers, and healthy ex-smokers were recruited. Each had airway oscillometry and multiple-breath nitrogen washout, measuring peripheral airway resistance, peripheral airway reactance, and acinar airway inhomogeneity. Subjects also had an inspiratory and expiratory chest CT, with DPM and PRM analysis performed by coregistering images and classifying each voxel as normal, emphysema, or nonemphysematous gas trapping related to SAD. Results: Thirty-eight subjects with COPD, 18 never smokers, and 23 healthy ex-smokers were recruited. There were strong associations between DPM and PRM analysis when measuring gas trapping (ρ = 0.87; P < 0.001) and emphysema (ρ = 0.99; P < 0.001). DPM assigned significantly more voxels as emphysema and gas trapped than PRM (P < 0.001). Both techniques showed significantly greater emphysema and gas trapping in subjects with COPD than in never smokers and ex-smokers (P < 0.001). All CT measures had significant associations with peripheral airway resistance and reactance, with disease probability measure of nonemphysematous gas trapping related to SAD having the strongest independent association with peripheral airway resistance (β = 0.42; P = 0.001) and peripheral airway reactance (β = 0.41; P = 0.001). Emphysema measures had the strongest associations with acinar airway inhomogeneity (β = 0.35-0.38).Conclusions: These results provide further validation for the use of DPM/PRM analysis in COPD by demonstrating significant relationships with specific physiological measures of SAD.
Rationale: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by airflow limitation, caused by emphysema and small airways disease (SAD). Computed tomography (CT) coupled with image analysis enables the quantification of these abnormalities; however, the optimum method for doing so has not been determined. Objectives: This study aims to compare two CT quantitative analysis techniques, disease probability measure (DPM) and parametric response mapping (PRM), and assess their relationship with specific physiological measures of SAD. Methods: Subjects with mild to moderate COPD, never smokers, and healthy ex-smokers were recruited. Each had airway oscillometry and multiple-breath nitrogen washout, measuring peripheral airway resistance, peripheral airway reactance, and acinar airway inhomogeneity. Subjects also had an inspiratory and expiratory chest CT, with DPM and PRM analysis performed by coregistering images and classifying each voxel as normal, emphysema, or nonemphysematous gas trapping related to SAD. Results: Thirty-eight subjects with COPD, 18 never smokers, and 23 healthy ex-smokers were recruited. There were strong associations between DPM and PRM analysis when measuring gas trapping (ρ = 0.87; P < 0.001) and emphysema (ρ = 0.99; P < 0.001). DPM assigned significantly more voxels as emphysema and gas trapped than PRM (P < 0.001). Both techniques showed significantly greater emphysema and gas trapping in subjects with COPD than in never smokers and ex-smokers (P < 0.001). All CT measures had significant associations with peripheral airway resistance and reactance, with disease probability measure of nonemphysematous gas trapping related to SAD having the strongest independent association with peripheral airway resistance (β = 0.42; P = 0.001) and peripheral airway reactance (β = 0.41; P = 0.001). Emphysema measures had the strongest associations with acinar airway inhomogeneity (β = 0.35-0.38).Conclusions: These results provide further validation for the use of DPM/PRM analysis in COPD by demonstrating significant relationships with specific physiological measures of SAD.
Entities:
Keywords:
COPD; emphysema; imaging; small airways disease
Authors: Steve N Georas; Rosalind J Wright; Anastasia Ivanova; Elliot Israel; Lisa M LaVange; Praveen Akuthota; Tara F Carr; Loren C Denlinger; Merritt L Fajt; Rajesh Kumar; Wanda K O'Neal; Wanda Phipatanakul; Stanley J Szefler; Mark A Aronica; Leonard B Bacharier; Allison J Burbank; Mario Castro; Laura Crotty Alexander; Julie Bamdad; Juan Carlos Cardet; Suzy A A Comhair; Ronina A Covar; Emily A DiMango; Kim Erwin; Serpil C Erzurum; John V Fahy; Jonathan M Gaffin; Benjamin Gaston; Lynn B Gerald; Eric A Hoffman; Fernando Holguin; Daniel J Jackson; John James; Nizar N Jarjour; Nicholas J Kenyon; Sumita Khatri; John P Kirwan; Monica Kraft; Jerry A Krishnan; Andrew H Liu; Mark C Liu; M Alison Marquis; Fernando Martinez; Jacob Mey; Wendy C Moore; James N Moy; Victor E Ortega; David B Peden; Emily Pennington; Michael C Peters; Kristie Ross; Maria Sanchez; Lewis J Smith; Ronald L Sorkness; Michael E Wechsler; Sally E Wenzel; Steven R White; Joe Zein; Amir A Zeki; Patricia Noel Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 14.290
Authors: Kyle A Hasenstab; Nancy Yuan; Tara Retson; Douglas J Conrad; Seth Kligerman; David A Lynch; Albert Hsiao Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2021-04-08
Authors: James G Krings; Charles W Goss; Daphne Lew; Maanasi Samant; Mary Clare McGregor; Jonathan Boomer; Leonard B Bacharier; Ajay Sheshadri; Chase Hall; Joshua Brownell; Ken B Schechtman; Samuel Peterson; Stephen McEleney; David T Mauger; John V Fahy; Sean B Fain; Loren C Denlinger; Elliot Israel; George Washko; Eric Hoffman; Sally E Wenzel; Mario Castro Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 14.290
Authors: Josalyn L Cho; Raul Villacreses; Prashant Nagpal; Junfeng Guo; Alejandro A Pezzulo; Andrew L Thurman; Nabeel Y Hamzeh; Robert J Blount; Spyridon Fortis; Eric A Hoffman; Joseph Zabner; Alejandro P Comellas Journal: Radiology Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 29.146