Ley-Zaporozhan Julia, Ley Sebastian, Weinheimer Oliver, Iliyushenko Svitlana, Erdugan Serap, Eberhardt Ralf, Fuxa Adelheid, Mews Jürgen, Kauczor Hans-Ulrich
Department of Radiology, Johannes Gutenberg University Hospital, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Eur J Radiol. 2008 Feb;65(2):228-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.03.034. Epub 2007 May 17.
The aim of the study was to compare the influence of different reconstruction algorithms on quantitative emphysema analysis in patients with severe emphysema.
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).
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.
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.
本研究旨在比较不同重建算法对重度肺气肿患者定量肺气肿分析的影响。
25例重度肺气肿患者纳入本研究。所有患者均接受吸气期MDCT检查(Aquilion-16,层厚1/0.8mm)。原始数据采用六种不同算法重建:带束硬化校正(BHC)的骨核、带BHC的软组织核、标准软组织核、平滑软组织核(内部参考标准)、标准肺核和高卷积核。图像数据集之间的唯一差异是用于重建原始数据的算法,无需额外辐射。使用自行编写的肺气肿检测和量化软件分析CT数据,该软件可提供肺容积、肺气肿容积(EV)、肺气肿指数(EI)和平均肺密度(MLD)。
与不带BHC的核相比,使用带BHC的核导致MLD显著降低(5%),EI显著降低(61%-79%)。MLD与平滑软组织核相比的绝对差异范围为-0.6至-6.1HU,所有核之间均有显著差异。EV的绝对差异在-0.05至-0.4L之间,所有核之间均有显著差异。EI的绝对差异在-0.8至-5.1之间,所有核之间均有显著差异。
使用带BHC的核导致MLD和EI显著降低。不带BHC的不同核之间的绝对差异较小,但大于患者已知的扫描间差异。因此,在随访检查中必须使用相同的重建算法,并避免使用BHC。