PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of cyst score measurements by standard high-resolution helical volume chest CT (HRCT) in patients with lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM), using a short z-length ultra-high resolution re-scan (UH re-scan) as the reference. In cystic lung diseases, cyst score is derived from CT scans and defined as the percentage of the total lung parenchymal volume occupied by cysts, a biomarker which measures the severity of the disease. METHODS: In a prospective study of 73 LAM patients, each patient received the standard HRCT chest scan and a short z-length UH re-scan. Cyst scores were acquired from both scans using a standard FDA-approved scoring software on the CT scanner. RESULTS: The limited UH re-scan resolved small cysts that were not resolved in the HRCT. The HRCT-derived cyst scores were on average 59.6% of the reference values from the UH re-scan (p = 4.7e-25). The amount of under-estimation by HRCT varied from patient to patient, with an inter-quartile range of 29.8% and standard deviation of 20.7%. The overall trend was more pronounced underestimation for patients with lower cyst scores. For patients whose reference cyst scores were below 15 (n = 29), the HRCT cyst scores were 46.9 ± 21.6% of reference values (p = 7.4e-12), while for the rest of the patients (n = 44) the HRCT cyst scores were 68.0 ± 15.3% of reference values (p = 1.2E-19). Reconstructing the HRCT images to the resolution of the UH re-scan further widened the spread of the discrepancy between HRCT and reference values due to increased image noise, and did not provide accurate cyst scores. CONCLUSION: Cyst scores derived from standard high-resolution helical volume chest CT significantly underestimates the percentage lung volume occupied by cysts. This inaccuracy needs to be taken into consideration when cyst score is used as part of the CT assessment of the patient's condition. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of cyst score measurements by standard high-resolution helical volume chest CT (HRCT) in patients with lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM), using a short z-length ultra-high resolution re-scan (UH re-scan) as the reference. In cystic lung diseases, cyst score is derived from CT scans and defined as the percentage of the total lung parenchymal volume occupied by cysts, a biomarker which measures the severity of the disease. METHODS: In a prospective study of 73 LAMpatients, each patient received the standard HRCT chest scan and a short z-length UH re-scan. Cyst scores were acquired from both scans using a standard FDA-approved scoring software on the CT scanner. RESULTS: The limited UH re-scan resolved small cysts that were not resolved in the HRCT. The HRCT-derived cyst scores were on average 59.6% of the reference values from the UH re-scan (p = 4.7e-25). The amount of under-estimation by HRCT varied from patient to patient, with an inter-quartile range of 29.8% and standard deviation of 20.7%. The overall trend was more pronounced underestimation for patients with lower cyst scores. For patients whose reference cyst scores were below 15 (n = 29), the HRCT cyst scores were 46.9 ± 21.6% of reference values (p = 7.4e-12), while for the rest of the patients (n = 44) the HRCT cyst scores were 68.0 ± 15.3% of reference values (p = 1.2E-19). Reconstructing the HRCT images to the resolution of the UH re-scan further widened the spread of the discrepancy between HRCT and reference values due to increased image noise, and did not provide accurate cyst scores. CONCLUSION: Cyst scores derived from standard high-resolution helical volume chest CT significantly underestimates the percentage lung volume occupied by cysts. This inaccuracy needs to be taken into consideration when cyst score is used as part of the CT assessment of the patient's condition. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Eileen Hu-Wang; John L Schuzer; Shirley Rollison; Eric S Leifer; Chloe Steveson; Vissaagan Gopalakrishnan; Jianhua Yao; Tania Machado; Amanda M Jones; Patricia Julien-Williams; Joel Moss; Marcus Y Chen Journal: Chest Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Vincent J Schmithorst; Talissa A Altes; Lisa R Young; David N Franz; John J Bissler; Francis X McCormack; Bernard J Dardzinski; Alan S Brody Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jakob Weiss; Michael Maurer; Dominik Ketelsen; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Dominik Zinsser; Julian L Wichmann; Konstantin Nikolaou; Fabian Bamberg; Ahmed E Othman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Brianna P Matthew; Amir M Hasani; Yun-Ching Chen; Mehdi Pirooznia; Mario Stylianou; Shirley F Rollison; Tania R Machado; Nora M Quade; Amanda M Jones; Patricia Julien-Williams; Angelo Taveira-DaSilva; Marcus Y Chen; Joel Moss; Han Wen Journal: Chest Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: David T Nguyen; Thomas C Larsen; Muyang Wang; Russel H Knutsen; Zhihong Yang; Eric E Bennett; Dumitru Mazilu; Zu-Xi Yu; Xi Tao; Danielle R Donahue; Ahmed M Gharib; Christopher K E Bleck; Joel Moss; Alan T Remaley; Beth A Kozel; Han Wen Journal: J Microsc Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 1.758