Dataset Information

The Impact of Iterative Reconstruction in Low-Dose Computed Tomography on the Evaluation of Diffuse Interstitial Lung Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the impact of iterative reconstruction (IR) on the assessment of diffuse interstitial lung disease (DILD) using CT.

Materials and methods

An American College of Radiology (ACR) phantom (module 4 to assess spatial resolution) was scanned with 10-100 effective mAs at 120 kVp. The images were reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR), with blending ratios of 0%, 30%, 70% and 100%, and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR), and their spatial resolution was objectively assessed by the line pair structure method. The patient study was based on retrospective interpretation of prospectively acquired data, and it was approved by the institutional review board. Chest CT scans of 23 patients (mean age 64 years) were performed at 120 kVp using 1) standard dose protocol applying 142-275 mA with dose modulation (high-resolution computed tomography [HRCT]) and 2) low-dose protocol applying 20 mA (low dose CT, LDCT). HRCT images were reconstructed with FBP, and LDCT images were reconstructed using FBP, ASIR, and MBIR. Matching images were randomized and independently reviewed by chest radiologists. Subjective assessment of disease presence and radiological diagnosis was made on a 10-point scale. In addition, semi-quantitative results were compared for the extent of abnormalities estimated to the nearest 5% of parenchymal involvement.

Results

In the phantom study, ASIR was comparable to FBP in terms of spatial resolution. However, for MBIR, the spatial resolution was greatly decreased under 10 mA. In the patient study, the detection of the presence of disease was not significantly different. The values for area under the curve for detection of DILD by HRCT, FBP, ASIR, and MBIR were as follows: 0.978, 0.979, 0.972, and 0.963. LDCT images reconstructed with FBP, ASIR, and MBIR tended to underestimate reticular or honeycombing opacities (-2.8%, -4.1%, and -5.3%, respectively) and overestimate ground glass opacities (+4.6%, +8.9%, and +8.5%, respectively) compared to the HRCT images. However, the reconstruction methods did not differ with respect to radiologic diagnosis.

Conclusion

The diagnostic performance of LDCT with MBIR was similar to that of HRCT in typical DILD cases. However, caution should be exercised when comparing disease extent, especially in follow-up studies with IR.

SUBMITTER: Lim HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5102923 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the image quality and radiation dose in computed tomography urography (CTU) images acquired with a low kilovoltage peak (kVp) in combination with an adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR) algorithm.MethodsA total of 45 subjects (18 women, 27 men) who underwent CTU with kV assist software for automatic selection of the optimal kVp were included and divided into two groups (A and B) based on the kVp and image reconstruction algorithm: group A consisted of patients who underwent CTU with a 80 or 100 kVp and whose images were reconstructed with the 50% ASiR algorithm (n=32); group B consisted of patients who underwent CTU with a 120 kVp and whose images were reconstructed with the filtered back projection (FBP) algorithm (n=13). The images were separately reconstructed with volume rendering (VR) and maximum intensity projection (MIP). Finally, the image quality was evaluated using an image score, CT attenuation, image noise, the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the renal pelvis-to-abdominal visceral fat and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the renal pelvis. The radiation dose was assessed using volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP) and effective dose (ED).ResultsFor groups A and B, the subjective image scores for the VR reconstruction images were 3.9±0.4 and 3.8±0.4, respectively, while those for the MIP reconstruction images were 3.8±0.4 and 3.6±0.6, respectively. No significant difference was found (p>0.05) between the two groups' image scores for either the VR or MIP reconstruction images. Additionally, the inter-reviewer image scores did not significantly differ (p>0.05). The mean attenuation of the bilateral renal pelvis in group A was significantly higher than that in group B (271.4±57.6 vs. 221.8±35.3 HU, p<0.05), whereas the image noise in group A was significantly lower than that in group B (7.9±2.1 vs. 10.5±2.3 HU, p<0.05). The CNR and SNR in group A were both significantly higher than those in group B (53.61±24.74 vs. 32.30±6.52 for CNR; 38.13±19.86 vs. 21.76±4.85 for SNR; all p<0.05). The CTDIvol, DLP and ED in group A were significantly lower than those in group B (9.26±2.77 vs. 16.19±5.60 mGy for CTDIvol; 368.86±119.38 vs. 674.38±239.37 mGy×cm-1 for DLP; 5.53±1.79 vs. 10.12±3.59 mSv for ED; all p<0.05).ConclusionsThe low kVp CTU images with 50% ASiR reconstruction exhibit sufficient image quality and facilitate up to a 44% radiation dose reduction.

Project description:ImportanceLung cancer screening has been widely implemented in Europe and the US. However, there is little evidence on participation and diagnostic yields in population-based lung cancer screening in China.ObjectiveTo assess the participation rate and detection rate of lung cancer in a population-based screening program and the factors associated with participation.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used data from the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China from October 2013 to October 2019, with follow-up until March 10, 2020. The program is conducted at centers in 8 cities in Henan Province, China. Eligible participants were aged 40 to 74 and were evaluated for a high risk for lung cancer using an established risk score system.Main outcomes and measuresOverall and group-specific participation rates by common factors, such as age, sex, and educational level, were calculated. Differences in participation rates between those groups were compared. The diagnostic yield of both screening and nonscreening groups was calculated.ResultsThe study recruited 282 377 eligible participants and included 55 428 with high risk for lung cancer; the mean (SD) age was 55.3 (8.1) years, and 34 966 participants (63.1%) were men. A total of 22 260 participants underwent LDCT (participation rate, 40.16%; 95% CI, 39.82%-40.50%). The multivariable logistic regression model showed that female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.52-1.78), former smoking (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.41), lack of physical activity (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.24), family history of lung cancer (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.66-1.79), and 7 other factors were associated with increased participation of LDCT screening. Overall, at 6-year follow-up, 78 participants in the screening group (0.35%; 95% CI, 0.29%-0.42%) and 125 in the nonscreening group (0.38%; 95% CI, 0.33%-0.44%) had lung cancer detected, which resulted in an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.70-1.23; P = .61).Conclusions and relevanceThe low participations rate in the program studied suggests that an improved strategy is needed. These findings may provide useful information for designing effective population-based lung cancer screening strategies in the future.

Project description:ImportanceScreening for lung cancer has the potential to reduce mortality, but in addition to detecting aggressive tumors, screening will also detect indolent tumors that otherwise may not cause clinical symptoms. These overdiagnosis cases represent an important potential harm of screening because they incur additional cost, anxiety, and morbidity associated with cancer treatment.ObjectiveTo estimate overdiagnosis in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).Design, setting, and participantsWe used data from the NLST, a randomized trial comparing screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) vs chest radiography (CXR) among 53 452 persons at high risk for lung cancer observed for 6.4 years, to estimate the excess number of lung cancers in the LDCT arm of the NLST compared with the CXR arm.Main outcomes and measuresWe calculated 2 measures of overdiagnosis: the probability that a lung cancer detected by screening with LDCT is an overdiagnosis (PS), defined as the excess lung cancers detected by LDCT divided by all lung cancers detected by screening in the LDCT arm; and the number of cases that were considered overdiagnosis relative to the number of persons needed to screen to prevent 1 death from lung cancer.ResultsDuring follow-up, 1089 lung cancers were reported in the LDCT arm and 969 in the CXR arm of the NLST. The probability is 18.5% (95% CI, 5.4%-30.6%) that any lung cancer detected by screening with LDCT was an overdiagnosis, 22.5% (95% CI, 9.7%-34.3%) that a non-small cell lung cancer detected by LDCT was an overdiagnosis, and 78.9% (95% CI, 62.2%-93.5%) that a bronchioalveolar lung cancer detected by LDCT was an overdiagnosis. The number of cases of overdiagnosis found among the 320 participants who would need to be screened in the NLST to prevent 1 death from lung cancer was 1.38.Conclusions and relevanceMore than 18% of all lung cancers detected by LDCT in the NLST seem to be indolent, and overdiagnosis should be considered when describing the risks of LDCT screening for lung cancer.