Volumetric measurement of artificial pure ground-glass nodules at low-dose CT: Comparisons between hybrid iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection

Noriyuki Sakai, Hidetake Yabuuchi, Masatoshi Kondo, Tsukasa Kojima, Kazuya Nagatomo, Satoshi Kawanami, Takeshi Kamitani, Masato Yonezawa, Michinobu Nagao, Hiroshi Honda

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose To compare hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) with filtered back projection (FBP) in the volumetry of artificial pure ground-glass nodules (GGNs) with low-dose computed tomography (CT). Materials and methods Artificial GGNs (10 mm-diameter, 523.6 mm3, -660 HU) in an anthropomorphic chest phantom were scanned by a 256-row multi-slice CT with three dose levels (10, 30, 100 mAs). Each scan was repeated six times. Each set was reconstructed by FBP and HIR at 0.625-mm thickness. The volumes of artificial GGNs placed at the lung apex and middle lung field of the chest phantom were measured by two observers. Semi-automated measurements were performed by clicking the cursor in the center of GGNs, and manual measurements were performed by tracing GGNs on axial section. Modification of the trace was added on a sagittal or coronal section if necessary. Measurement errors were calculated for both the FBP and HIR at each dose level. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test to identify any significant difference between the measurement errors of the FBP and HIR. Inter-observer, intra-observer, and inter-scan variabilities were evaluated by Bland Altman analysis with limits of agreements given by 95% confidence intervals. Results There were significant differences in measurement errors only at the lung apex between FBP and HIR with 10 mAs in both the semi-automated (observer 1, -37% vs. 7.2%; observer 2, -39% vs. 1.9%) and manual methods (observer 1, -29% vs. 7.5%; observer 2, -30% vs. 1.1%), respectively (P < 0.05). HIR provided each variability equal to or less than one half of that of FBP at 10 mAs in both methods. In the semi-automated method, the inter-observer and intra-observer variabilities obtained by HIR at 10 mAs were -11% to 17% and -6.7% to 6.7%, whereas those for FBP at 10 mAs were -29% to 30% and -38% to 20%, respectively. The inter-scan variability for FBP at 100 mAs vs. HIR at 10 mAs was -9.5% to 11%, and that for FBP at 100 mAs vs. FBP at 10 mAs was -73% to 32%. In the manual method, the inter-observer and intra-observer variabilities for HIR at 10 mAs were -14% to 22% and -9.8% to 22%, and those for FBP at 10 mAs were -45% to 36% and -31% to 28%, respectively. The inter-scan variability for FBP at 100 mAs vs. HIR at 10 mAs was -7.4% to 23%, and that for FBP at 100 mAs vs. FBP at 10 mAs was -52% to 26%. Conclusion HIR is superior to FBP in the volumetry of artificial pure GGNs at lung apex with low-dose CT.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2654-2662
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Journal of Radiology
Volume84
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

Glass
Tomography
Observer Variation
Lung
Thorax
Nonparametric Statistics
Confidence Intervals

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Volumetric measurement of artificial pure ground-glass nodules at low-dose CT : Comparisons between hybrid iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection. / Sakai, Noriyuki; Yabuuchi, Hidetake; Kondo, Masatoshi; Kojima, Tsukasa; Nagatomo, Kazuya; Kawanami, Satoshi; Kamitani, Takeshi; Yonezawa, Masato; Nagao, Michinobu; Honda, Hiroshi.

In: European Journal of Radiology, Vol. 84, No. 12, 01.01.2015, p. 2654-2662.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sakai, Noriyuki ; Yabuuchi, Hidetake ; Kondo, Masatoshi ; Kojima, Tsukasa ; Nagatomo, Kazuya ; Kawanami, Satoshi ; Kamitani, Takeshi ; Yonezawa, Masato ; Nagao, Michinobu ; Honda, Hiroshi. / Volumetric measurement of artificial pure ground-glass nodules at low-dose CT : Comparisons between hybrid iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection. In: European Journal of Radiology. 2015 ; Vol. 84, No. 12. pp. 2654-2662.
@article{6cf0f68bd2b74ac582bd79a34730eb72,
title = "Volumetric measurement of artificial pure ground-glass nodules at low-dose CT: Comparisons between hybrid iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection",
abstract = "Purpose To compare hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) with filtered back projection (FBP) in the volumetry of artificial pure ground-glass nodules (GGNs) with low-dose computed tomography (CT). Materials and methods Artificial GGNs (10 mm-diameter, 523.6 mm3, -660 HU) in an anthropomorphic chest phantom were scanned by a 256-row multi-slice CT with three dose levels (10, 30, 100 mAs). Each scan was repeated six times. Each set was reconstructed by FBP and HIR at 0.625-mm thickness. The volumes of artificial GGNs placed at the lung apex and middle lung field of the chest phantom were measured by two observers. Semi-automated measurements were performed by clicking the cursor in the center of GGNs, and manual measurements were performed by tracing GGNs on axial section. Modification of the trace was added on a sagittal or coronal section if necessary. Measurement errors were calculated for both the FBP and HIR at each dose level. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test to identify any significant difference between the measurement errors of the FBP and HIR. Inter-observer, intra-observer, and inter-scan variabilities were evaluated by Bland Altman analysis with limits of agreements given by 95{\%} confidence intervals. Results There were significant differences in measurement errors only at the lung apex between FBP and HIR with 10 mAs in both the semi-automated (observer 1, -37{\%} vs. 7.2{\%}; observer 2, -39{\%} vs. 1.9{\%}) and manual methods (observer 1, -29{\%} vs. 7.5{\%}; observer 2, -30{\%} vs. 1.1{\%}), respectively (P < 0.05). HIR provided each variability equal to or less than one half of that of FBP at 10 mAs in both methods. In the semi-automated method, the inter-observer and intra-observer variabilities obtained by HIR at 10 mAs were -11{\%} to 17{\%} and -6.7{\%} to 6.7{\%}, whereas those for FBP at 10 mAs were -29{\%} to 30{\%} and -38{\%} to 20{\%}, respectively. The inter-scan variability for FBP at 100 mAs vs. HIR at 10 mAs was -9.5{\%} to 11{\%}, and that for FBP at 100 mAs vs. FBP at 10 mAs was -73{\%} to 32{\%}. In the manual method, the inter-observer and intra-observer variabilities for HIR at 10 mAs were -14{\%} to 22{\%} and -9.8{\%} to 22{\%}, and those for FBP at 10 mAs were -45{\%} to 36{\%} and -31{\%} to 28{\%}, respectively. The inter-scan variability for FBP at 100 mAs vs. HIR at 10 mAs was -7.4{\%} to 23{\%}, and that for FBP at 100 mAs vs. FBP at 10 mAs was -52{\%} to 26{\%}. Conclusion HIR is superior to FBP in the volumetry of artificial pure GGNs at lung apex with low-dose CT.",
author = "Noriyuki Sakai and Hidetake Yabuuchi and Masatoshi Kondo and Tsukasa Kojima and Kazuya Nagatomo and Satoshi Kawanami and Takeshi Kamitani and Masato Yonezawa and Michinobu Nagao and Hiroshi Honda",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.08.018",
language = "English",
volume = "84",
pages = "2654--2662",
journal = "European Journal of Radiology",
issn = "0720-048X",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Volumetric measurement of artificial pure ground-glass nodules at low-dose CT

T2 - Comparisons between hybrid iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection

AU - Sakai, Noriyuki

AU - Yabuuchi, Hidetake

AU - Kondo, Masatoshi

AU - Kojima, Tsukasa

AU - Nagatomo, Kazuya

AU - Kawanami, Satoshi

AU - Kamitani, Takeshi

AU - Yonezawa, Masato

AU - Nagao, Michinobu

AU - Honda, Hiroshi

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Purpose To compare hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) with filtered back projection (FBP) in the volumetry of artificial pure ground-glass nodules (GGNs) with low-dose computed tomography (CT). Materials and methods Artificial GGNs (10 mm-diameter, 523.6 mm3, -660 HU) in an anthropomorphic chest phantom were scanned by a 256-row multi-slice CT with three dose levels (10, 30, 100 mAs). Each scan was repeated six times. Each set was reconstructed by FBP and HIR at 0.625-mm thickness. The volumes of artificial GGNs placed at the lung apex and middle lung field of the chest phantom were measured by two observers. Semi-automated measurements were performed by clicking the cursor in the center of GGNs, and manual measurements were performed by tracing GGNs on axial section. Modification of the trace was added on a sagittal or coronal section if necessary. Measurement errors were calculated for both the FBP and HIR at each dose level. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test to identify any significant difference between the measurement errors of the FBP and HIR. Inter-observer, intra-observer, and inter-scan variabilities were evaluated by Bland Altman analysis with limits of agreements given by 95% confidence intervals. Results There were significant differences in measurement errors only at the lung apex between FBP and HIR with 10 mAs in both the semi-automated (observer 1, -37% vs. 7.2%; observer 2, -39% vs. 1.9%) and manual methods (observer 1, -29% vs. 7.5%; observer 2, -30% vs. 1.1%), respectively (P < 0.05). HIR provided each variability equal to or less than one half of that of FBP at 10 mAs in both methods. In the semi-automated method, the inter-observer and intra-observer variabilities obtained by HIR at 10 mAs were -11% to 17% and -6.7% to 6.7%, whereas those for FBP at 10 mAs were -29% to 30% and -38% to 20%, respectively. The inter-scan variability for FBP at 100 mAs vs. HIR at 10 mAs was -9.5% to 11%, and that for FBP at 100 mAs vs. FBP at 10 mAs was -73% to 32%. In the manual method, the inter-observer and intra-observer variabilities for HIR at 10 mAs were -14% to 22% and -9.8% to 22%, and those for FBP at 10 mAs were -45% to 36% and -31% to 28%, respectively. The inter-scan variability for FBP at 100 mAs vs. HIR at 10 mAs was -7.4% to 23%, and that for FBP at 100 mAs vs. FBP at 10 mAs was -52% to 26%. Conclusion HIR is superior to FBP in the volumetry of artificial pure GGNs at lung apex with low-dose CT.

AB - Purpose To compare hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) with filtered back projection (FBP) in the volumetry of artificial pure ground-glass nodules (GGNs) with low-dose computed tomography (CT). Materials and methods Artificial GGNs (10 mm-diameter, 523.6 mm3, -660 HU) in an anthropomorphic chest phantom were scanned by a 256-row multi-slice CT with three dose levels (10, 30, 100 mAs). Each scan was repeated six times. Each set was reconstructed by FBP and HIR at 0.625-mm thickness. The volumes of artificial GGNs placed at the lung apex and middle lung field of the chest phantom were measured by two observers. Semi-automated measurements were performed by clicking the cursor in the center of GGNs, and manual measurements were performed by tracing GGNs on axial section. Modification of the trace was added on a sagittal or coronal section if necessary. Measurement errors were calculated for both the FBP and HIR at each dose level. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test to identify any significant difference between the measurement errors of the FBP and HIR. Inter-observer, intra-observer, and inter-scan variabilities were evaluated by Bland Altman analysis with limits of agreements given by 95% confidence intervals. Results There were significant differences in measurement errors only at the lung apex between FBP and HIR with 10 mAs in both the semi-automated (observer 1, -37% vs. 7.2%; observer 2, -39% vs. 1.9%) and manual methods (observer 1, -29% vs. 7.5%; observer 2, -30% vs. 1.1%), respectively (P < 0.05). HIR provided each variability equal to or less than one half of that of FBP at 10 mAs in both methods. In the semi-automated method, the inter-observer and intra-observer variabilities obtained by HIR at 10 mAs were -11% to 17% and -6.7% to 6.7%, whereas those for FBP at 10 mAs were -29% to 30% and -38% to 20%, respectively. The inter-scan variability for FBP at 100 mAs vs. HIR at 10 mAs was -9.5% to 11%, and that for FBP at 100 mAs vs. FBP at 10 mAs was -73% to 32%. In the manual method, the inter-observer and intra-observer variabilities for HIR at 10 mAs were -14% to 22% and -9.8% to 22%, and those for FBP at 10 mAs were -45% to 36% and -31% to 28%, respectively. The inter-scan variability for FBP at 100 mAs vs. HIR at 10 mAs was -7.4% to 23%, and that for FBP at 100 mAs vs. FBP at 10 mAs was -52% to 26%. Conclusion HIR is superior to FBP in the volumetry of artificial pure GGNs at lung apex with low-dose CT.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84951569484&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84951569484&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.08.018

DO - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.08.018

M3 - Article

C2 - 26362824

AN - SCOPUS:84951569484

VL - 84

SP - 2654

EP - 2662

JO - European Journal of Radiology

JF - European Journal of Radiology

SN - 0720-048X

IS - 12

ER -