» Articles » PMID: 29312867

Quantitative Assessment of Nonsolid Pulmonary Nodule Volume with Computed Tomography in a Phantom Study

Overview
Specialty Radiology
Date 2018 Jan 10
PMID 29312867
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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 (CTDI)] 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 CTDI 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.

Citing Articles

Factors influencing the outcome of volumetry tools for pulmonary nodule analysis: a systematic review and attempted meta-analysis.

Guedes Pinto E, Penha D, Ravara S, Monaghan C, Hochhegger B, Marchiori E Insights Imaging. 2023; 14(1):152.

PMID: 37741928 PMC: 10517915. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-023-01480-z.


Ultra-low-dose spectral-detector computed tomography for the accurate quantification of pulmonary nodules: an anthropomorphic chest phantom study.

Zhou X, Zhang H, Jin X, Zhang X, Lu X, Han Q Diagn Interv Radiol. 2023; 29(5):691-703.

PMID: 37559745 PMC: 10679552. DOI: 10.4274/dir.2023.232233.


Accuracy of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction for CT Volumetry of Part-Solid Nodules and Solid Nodules in Comparison with Filtered Back Projection and Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction at Various Dose Settings: An Anthropomorphic Chest Phantom Study.

Kim S, Kim C, Lee K, Cha J, Lim H, Kang E Korean J Radiol. 2019; 20(7):1195-1206.

PMID: 31270983 PMC: 6609437. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2018.0893.


Quantitative features can predict further growth of persistent pure ground-glass nodule.

Shi Z, Deng J, She Y, Zhang L, Ren Y, Sun W Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2019; 9(2):283-291.

PMID: 30976552 PMC: 6414776. DOI: 10.21037/qims.2019.01.04.


Improved repeatability of subsolid nodule measurement in low-dose lung screening with monoenergetic images: a phantom study.

Kim J, Lee K, Kim J, Shin Y, Lee K Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2019; 9(2):171-179.

PMID: 30976541 PMC: 6414760. DOI: 10.21037/qims.2018.10.06.


References
1.
Obuchowski N, Reeves A, Huang E, Wang X, Buckler A, Kim H . Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for computer algorithm comparisons. Stat Methods Med Res. 2014; 24(1):68-106. PMC: 4263694. DOI: 10.1177/0962280214537390. View

2.
Li Q, Gavrielides M, Sahiner B, Myers K, Zeng R, Petrick N . Statistical analysis of lung nodule volume measurements with CT in a large-scale phantom study. Med Phys. 2015; 42(7):3932-47. PMC: 5664946. DOI: 10.1118/1.4921734. View

3.
Kim H, Shim Y, Lee K, Han J, Yi C, Kim Y . Persistent pulmonary nodular ground-glass opacity at thin-section CT: histopathologic comparisons. Radiology. 2007; 245(1):267-75. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2451061682. View

4.
Doo K, Kang E, Yong H, Woo O, Lee K, Oh Y . Accuracy of lung nodule volumetry in low-dose CT with iterative reconstruction: an anthropomorphic thoracic phantom study. Br J Radiol. 2014; 87(1041):20130644. PMC: 4453132. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20130644. View

5.
Gavrielides M, Li Q, Zeng R, Myers K, Sahiner B, Petrick N . Volume estimation of multidensity nodules with thoracic computed tomography. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2016; 3(1):013504. PMC: 4732543. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.3.1.013504. View