Cohen Julien G, Kim Hyungjin, Park Su Bin, van Ginneken Bram, Ferretti Gilbert R, Lee Chang Hyun, Goo Jin Mo, Park Chang Min
Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea.
Eur Radiol. 2017 Aug;27(8):3266-3274. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4716-5. Epub 2017 Jan 5.
To evaluate the differences between filtered back projection (FBP) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) algorithms on semi-automatic measurements in subsolid nodules (SSNs).
Unenhanced CT scans of 73 SSNs obtained using the same protocol and reconstructed with both FBP and MBIR algorithms were evaluated by two radiologists. Diameter, mean attenuation, mass and volume of whole nodules and their solid components were measured. Intra- and interobserver variability and differences between FBP and MBIR were then evaluated using Bland-Altman method and Wilcoxon tests.
Longest diameter, volume and mass of nodules and those of their solid components were significantly higher using MBIR (p < 0.05) with mean differences of 1.1% (limits of agreement, -6.4 to 8.5%), 3.2% (-20.9 to 27.3%) and 2.9% (-16.9 to 22.7%) and 3.2% (-20.5 to 27%), 6.3% (-51.9 to 64.6%), 6.6% (-50.1 to 63.3%), respectively. The limits of agreement between FBP and MBIR were within the range of intra- and interobserver variability for both algorithms with respect to the diameter, volume and mass of nodules and their solid components. There were no significant differences in intra- or interobserver variability between FBP and MBIR (p > 0.05).
Semi-automatic measurements of SSNs significantly differed between FBP and MBIR; however, the differences were within the range of measurement variability.
• Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of measurements did not differ between FBP and MBIR. • Differences in SSNs' semi-automatic measurement induced by reconstruction algorithms were not clinically significant. • Semi-automatic measurement may be conducted regardless of reconstruction algorithm. • SSNs' semi-automated classification agreement (pure vs. part-solid) did not significantly differ between algorithms.
评估滤波反投影(FBP)算法和基于模型的迭代重建(MBIR)算法在亚实性结节(SSN)半自动测量中的差异。
由两名放射科医生对73个使用相同方案获得的SSN的平扫CT扫描图像进行评估,这些图像分别采用FBP算法和MBIR算法进行重建。测量整个结节及其实性成分的直径、平均衰减、质量和体积。然后使用Bland-Altman方法和Wilcoxon检验评估观察者内和观察者间的变异性以及FBP和MBIR之间的差异。
使用MBIR时,结节及其实性成分的最长直径、体积和质量显著更高(p < 0.05),平均差异分别为1.1%(一致性界限,-6.4至8.5%)、3.2%(-20.9至27.3%)和2.9%(-16.9至22.7%),以及3.2%(-20.5至27%)、6.3%(-51.9至64.6%)、6.6%(-50.1至63.3%)。就结节及其实性成分的直径、体积和质量而言,FBP和MBIR之间的一致性界限在两种算法观察者内和观察者间变异性范围内。FBP和MBIR之间观察者内或观察者间变异性无显著差异(p > 0.05)。
FBP和MBIR在SSN的半自动测量上存在显著差异;然而,这些差异在测量变异性范围内。
• FBP和MBIR之间测量的观察者内和观察者间可重复性无差异。• 重建算法引起的SSN半自动测量差异无临床意义。• 无论采用何种重建算法均可进行半自动测量。• 算法之间SSN的半自动分类一致性(纯实性与部分实性)无显著差异。