Quantitative Analysis of Emphysema in 3D Using MDCT: Influence of Different Reconstruction Algorithms
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Purpose: The aim of the study was to compare the influence of different reconstruction algorithms on quantitative emphysema analysis in patients with severe emphysema.
Material And Methods: Twenty-five patients suffering from severe emphysema were included in the study. All patients underwent inspiratory MDCT (Aquilion-16, slice thickness 1/0.8mm). The raw data were reconstructed using six different algorithms: bone kernel with beam hardening correction (BHC), soft tissue kernel with BHC; standard soft tissue kernel, smooth soft tissue kernel (internal reference standard), standard lung kernel, and high-convolution kernel. The only difference between image data sets was the algorithm employed to reconstruct the raw data, no additional radiation was required. CT data were analysed using self-written emphysema detection and quantification software providing lung volume, emphysema volume (EV), emphysema index (EI) and mean lung density (MLD).
Results: The use of kernels with BHC led to a significant decrease in MLD (5%) and EI (61-79%) in comparison with kernels without BHC. The absolute difference (from smooth soft tissue kernel) in MLD ranged from -0.6 to -6.1 HU and were significant different for all kernels. The EV showed absolute differences between -0.05 and -0.4 L and was significantly different for all kernels. The EI showed absolute differences between -0.8 and -5.1 and was significantly different for all kernels.
Conclusion: The use of kernels with BHC led to a significant decrease in MLD and EI. The absolute differences between different kernels without BHC were small but they were larger than the known interscan variation in patients. Thus, for follow-up examinations the same reconstruction algorithm has to be used and use of BHC has to be avoided.
Peters A, Weinheimer O, von Stackelberg O, Kroschke J, Piskorski L, Debic M Eur Radiol. 2022; 33(6):3908-3917.
PMID: 36538071 PMC: 10181968. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-09334-w.
Do T, Skornitzke S, Merle U, Kittel M, Hofbaur S, Melzig C PLoS One. 2022; 17(7):e0271787.
PMID: 35905122 PMC: 9337660. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271787.
Hua Q, Chen G, Yang Y, Leng S, Zhao Z, Bai F Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2022; 2022:6015766.
PMID: 35865341 PMC: 9296276. DOI: 10.1155/2022/6015766.
Imaging of congenital lung diseases presenting in the adulthood: a pictorial review.
Durhan G, Duzgun S, Akpinar M, Demirkazik F, Ariyurek O Insights Imaging. 2021; 12(1):153.
PMID: 34716817 PMC: 8557233. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-021-01095-2.
Pennati F, Walkup L, Chhabra A, Towe C, Myers K, Aliverti A Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020; 56(5):1026-1035.
PMID: 33314762 PMC: 8721603. DOI: 10.1002/ppul.25223.