Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/42/10/10.1118/1.4930797
1.
1.Cystic Fibrosis World Wide (CFWW), About Cystic Fibrosis, 2015.
2.
2.National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), Cystic Fibrosis, 2015.
3.
3.World Health Organization (WHO), Genomics: Cystic Fibrosis, 2015.
4.
4.Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF), Life expectancy for people with CF, 2015.
5.
5.National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), COPD, 2015.
6.
6.National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), Asthma, 2015.
7.
7.A. Brody, M. Kosorok, Z. Li, L. Broderick, J. Foster, and A. Laxova, “Reproducibility of a scoring system for computed tomography scanning in cystic fibrosis,” J. Thorac. Imaging 21, 1421 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.rti.0000203937.82276.ce
8.
8.D. Sanders, Z. Li, and A. Brody, “Chest CT predicts the frequency of pulmonary exacerbations in children with cystic fibrosis,” Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 12, 6469 (2014).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201407-338OC
9.
9.E. DeBoer, W. Swiercz, and S. Heltshe, “Automated CT scan scores of bronchiectasis and air trapping in cystic fibrosis,” Chest 145, 593603 (2014).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.13-0588
10.
10.A. Calder, A. Bush, A. Brody, and C. Owens, “Scoring of chest CT in children with cystic fibrosis: State of the art,” Pediatr. Radiol. 44, 14961506 (2014).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00247-013-2867-y
11.
11.J. Kosciuch, R. Krenke, K. Gorska, M. Zukowska, M.-W. M, and R. Chazan, “Relationship between airway wall thickness assessed by high-resolution computed tomography and lung function in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 60, 7176 (2009).
12.
12.R. Hartley, B. Barker, M. Pakkal, C. Newby, S. Siddiqui, C. Brightling, and S. Gupta, “Can quantitative computed tomography (QCT) differentiate between asthma & COPD in patients with similar degrees of airflow limitation?,” Eur. Respir. J. 44, 49714974 (2014).
13.
13.T. Oguma, T. Hirai, M. Fukui, N. Tanabe, S. Marumo, H. Nakamura, H. Ito, S. Sato, A. Niimi, H. Matsumoto, S. Muro, and M. Mishima, “Longitudinal shape irregularity of airway lumen assessed by CT in patients with bronchial asthma and COPD,” Thorax 70, 16 (2015).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206651
14.
14.M. Wielpütz, M. Eichinger, O. Weinheimer, S. Ley, and M. Mall, “Automatic airway analysis on multidetector computed tomography in cystic fibrosis: Correlation with pulmonary function testing,” J. Thorac. Imaging 28, 104113 (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0b013e3182765785
15.
15.M. Goris, H. Zhu, F. Blankenberg, F. Chan, and T. Robinson, “An automated approach to quantitative air trapping measurements in mild cystic fibrosis,” Chest 123, 16551663 (2003).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.123.5.1655
16.
16.B. Odry, A. Kiraly, and M. Godoy, “Automated CT scoring of airway diseases: Preliminary results,” Acad. Radiol. 17, 11361145 (2010).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2010.04.019
17.
17.R. Venkatraman, R. Raman, B. Raman, R. Moss, G. Rubin, L. Mathers, and T. Robinson, “Fully automated system for three-dimension bronchial morphology analysis using volumetric multidector computed tomography of the chest,” J. Digit. Imaging 19, 132139 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10278-005-9240-0
18.
18.B. Lassen, E. Van Rikxoort, M. Schmidt, S. Kerkstra, B. Van Ginneken, and J. Kuhnigk, “Automatic segmentation of the pulmonary lobes from chest CT scans based on fissures, vessels, and bronchi,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 32, 210222 (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2012.2219881
19.
19.E. Hoffman, S. BA, and M. G, “A structural and functional assessment of the lung via multidetector-row computed tomography: Phenotyping chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. 3, 519532 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1513/pats.200603-086MS
20.
20.National Research Council, “Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII – Phase 2. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,'' Washington, DC (National Academies Press, 2006).
21.
21.National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, “Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States,'' NCRP Report No. 160, Bethesda, MD (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2009).
22.
22.L. Yu, X. Liu, and S. Leng, “Radiation dose reduction in computed tomography: Techniques and future perspective,” Imaging Med. 1, 6584 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/iim.09.5
23.
23.J. Thibault, K. Sauer, C. Bouman, and J. Hsieh, “A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT,” Med. Phys. 34, 45264544 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2789499
24.
24.K. Li, T. Jie, and G.-H. Chen, “Statistical model based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in clinical CT systems: Experimental assessment of noise performance,” Med. Phys. 41, 041906 (15pp.) (2014).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4867863
25.
25.G. Healthcare, “Veo: A new breakthrough is re-writing the rules of low-dose CT imaging,” CT Clarity magazine 3237 (2011).
26.
26.T. Robinson, F. Long, P. Raman, P. Saha, M. Emond, J. Reinhardt, R. Raman, and A. Brody, “An airway phantom to standardize CT acquisition in multicenter clinical trials,” Acad. Radiol. 16, 11341141 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2009.02.018
27.
27.S. Estepar, G. Washko, E. Silverman, J. Reilly, R. Kikinis, and C. Westin, “Accurate airway wall estimation using phase congruency,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, 2006), Vol. 4191, pp. 125134.
28.
28.A. Rodriguez, F. Ranallo, P. Judy, D. Gierada, and S. Fain, “CT reconstruction techniques for improved accuracy of lung CT airway measurement,” Med. Phys. 41, 111911 (8pp.) (2014).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4898098
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/42/10/10.1118/1.4930797
Loading
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/42/10/10.1118/1.4930797
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/42/10/10.1118/1.4930797
2015-09-18
2016-10-01

Abstract

Wall thickness (WT) is an airway feature of great interest for the assessment of morphological changes in the lung parenchyma. Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) has recently been used to evaluate airway WT, but the potential risk of radiation-induced carcinogenesis—particularly in younger patients—might limit a wider use of this imaging method in clinical practice. The recent commercial implementation of the statistical model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) algorithm, instead of the conventional filtered back projection (FBP) algorithm, has enabled considerable radiation dose reduction in many other clinical applications of MDCT. The purpose of this work was to study the impact of radiation dose and MBIR in the MDCT assessment of airway WT.

An airway phantom was scanned using a clinical MDCT system (Discovery CT750 HD, GE Healthcare) at 4 kV levels and 5 mAs levels. Both FBP and a commercial implementation of MBIR (VeoTM, GE Healthcare) were used to reconstruct CT images of the airways. For each kV–mAs combination and each reconstruction algorithm, the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the airways was measured, and the WT of each airway was measured and compared with the nominal value; the relative bias and the angular standard deviation in the measured WT were calculated. For each airway and reconstruction algorithm, the overall performance of WT quantification across all of the 20 kV–mAs combinations was quantified by the sum of squares (SSQs) of the difference between the measured and nominal WT values. Finally, the particular kV–mAs combination and reconstruction algorithm that minimized radiation dose while still achieving a reference WT quantification accuracy level was chosen as the optimal acquisition and reconstruction settings.

The wall thicknesses of seven airways of different sizes were analyzed in the study. Compared with FBP, MBIR improved the CNR of the airways, particularly at low radiation dose levels. For FBP, the relative bias and the angular standard deviation of the measured WT increased steeply with decreasing radiation dose. Except for the smallest airway, MBIR enabled significant reduction in both the relative bias and angular standard deviation of the WT, particularly at low radiation dose levels; the SSQ was reduced by 50%–96% by using MBIR. The optimal reconstruction algorithm was found to be MBIR for the seven airways being assessed, and the combined use of MBIR and optimal kV–mAs selection resulted in a radiation dose reduction of 37%–83% compared with a reference scan protocol with a dose level of 1 mGy.

The quantification accuracy of airway WT is strongly influenced by radiation dose and reconstruction algorithm. The MBIR algorithm potentially allows the desired WT quantification accuracy to be achieved with reduced radiation dose, which may enable a wider clinical use of MDCT for the assessment of airway WT, particularly for younger patients who may be more sensitive to exposures with ionizing radiation.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aapm/journal/medphys/42/10/1.4930797.html;jsessionid=gtKXncNwN-jNVXbt_ZE67ugv.x-aip-live-02?itemId=/content/aapm/journal/medphys/42/10/10.1118/1.4930797&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aapm/journal/medphys
true
true

Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
/content/realmedia?fmt=ahah&adPositionList=
&advertTargetUrl=//oascentral.aip.org/RealMedia/ads/&sitePageValue=online.medphys.org/42/10/10.1118/1.4930797&pageURL=http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapm/journal/medphys/42/10/10.1118/1.4930797'
Right1,Right2,Right3,