Assessment of Emphysema on X-ray Equivalent Dose Photon-Counting Detector CT: Evaluation of Visual Scoring and Automated Quantification Algorithms.

IF 7 1区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Bjarne Kerber, Falko Ensle, Jonas Kroschke, Cecilia Strappa, Anna Rita Larici, Thomas Frauenfelder, Lisa Jungblut
{"title":"Assessment of Emphysema on X-ray Equivalent Dose Photon-Counting Detector CT: Evaluation of Visual Scoring and Automated Quantification Algorithms.","authors":"Bjarne Kerber, Falko Ensle, Jonas Kroschke, Cecilia Strappa, Anna Rita Larici, Thomas Frauenfelder, Lisa Jungblut","doi":"10.1097/RLI.0000000000001128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of visual scoring, low-attenuation volume (LAV), and deep learning methods for estimating emphysema extent in x-ray dose photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT), aiming to explore future dose reduction potentials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred one prospectively enrolled patients underwent noncontrast low- and chest x-ray dose CT scans in the same study using PCD-CT. Overall image quality, sharpness, and noise, as well as visual emphysema pattern (no, trace, mild, moderate, confluent, and advanced destructive emphysema; as defined by the Fleischner Society), were independently assessed by 2 experienced radiologists for low- and x-ray dose images, followed by an expert consensus read. In the second step, automated emphysema quantification was performed using an established LAV algorithm with a threshold of -950 HU and a commercially available deep learning model for automated emphysema quantification. Automated estimations of emphysema extent were converted and compared with visual scoring ratings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>X-ray dose scans exhibited a significantly lower computed tomography dose index than low-dose scans (low-dose: 0.66 ± 0.16 mGy, x-ray dose: 0.11 ± 0.03 mGy, P < 0.001). Interreader agreement between low- and x-ray dose for visual emphysema scoring was excellent (κ = 0.83). Visual emphysema scoring consensus showed good agreement between low-dose and x-ray dose scans (κ = 0.70), with significant and strong correlation (Spearman ρ = 0.79). Although trace emphysema was underestimated in x-ray dose scans, there was no significant difference in the detection of higher-grade (mild to advanced destructive) emphysema (P = 0.125) between the 2 scan doses. Although predicted emphysema volumes on x-ray dose scans for the LAV method showed strong and the deep learning model excellent significant correlations with predictions on low-dose scans, both methods significantly overestimated emphysema volumes on lower quality scans (P < 0.001), with the deep learning model being more robust. Further, deep learning emphysema severity estimations showed higher agreement (κ = 0.65) and correlation (Spearman ρ = 0.64) with visual scoring for low-dose scans than LAV predictions (κ = 0.48, Spearman ρ = 0.45).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The severity of emphysema can be reliably estimated using visual scoring on CT scans performed with x-ray equivalent doses on a PCD-CT. A deep learning algorithm demonstrated good agreement and strong correlation with the visual scoring method on low-dose scans. However, both the deep learning and LAV algorithms overestimated emphysema extent on x-ray dose scans. Nonetheless, x-ray equivalent radiation dose scans may revolutionize the detection and monitoring of disease in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":14486,"journal":{"name":"Investigative Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Investigative Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000001128","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of visual scoring, low-attenuation volume (LAV), and deep learning methods for estimating emphysema extent in x-ray dose photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT), aiming to explore future dose reduction potentials.

Methods: One hundred one prospectively enrolled patients underwent noncontrast low- and chest x-ray dose CT scans in the same study using PCD-CT. Overall image quality, sharpness, and noise, as well as visual emphysema pattern (no, trace, mild, moderate, confluent, and advanced destructive emphysema; as defined by the Fleischner Society), were independently assessed by 2 experienced radiologists for low- and x-ray dose images, followed by an expert consensus read. In the second step, automated emphysema quantification was performed using an established LAV algorithm with a threshold of -950 HU and a commercially available deep learning model for automated emphysema quantification. Automated estimations of emphysema extent were converted and compared with visual scoring ratings.

Results: X-ray dose scans exhibited a significantly lower computed tomography dose index than low-dose scans (low-dose: 0.66 ± 0.16 mGy, x-ray dose: 0.11 ± 0.03 mGy, P < 0.001). Interreader agreement between low- and x-ray dose for visual emphysema scoring was excellent (κ = 0.83). Visual emphysema scoring consensus showed good agreement between low-dose and x-ray dose scans (κ = 0.70), with significant and strong correlation (Spearman ρ = 0.79). Although trace emphysema was underestimated in x-ray dose scans, there was no significant difference in the detection of higher-grade (mild to advanced destructive) emphysema (P = 0.125) between the 2 scan doses. Although predicted emphysema volumes on x-ray dose scans for the LAV method showed strong and the deep learning model excellent significant correlations with predictions on low-dose scans, both methods significantly overestimated emphysema volumes on lower quality scans (P < 0.001), with the deep learning model being more robust. Further, deep learning emphysema severity estimations showed higher agreement (κ = 0.65) and correlation (Spearman ρ = 0.64) with visual scoring for low-dose scans than LAV predictions (κ = 0.48, Spearman ρ = 0.45).

Conclusions: The severity of emphysema can be reliably estimated using visual scoring on CT scans performed with x-ray equivalent doses on a PCD-CT. A deep learning algorithm demonstrated good agreement and strong correlation with the visual scoring method on low-dose scans. However, both the deep learning and LAV algorithms overestimated emphysema extent on x-ray dose scans. Nonetheless, x-ray equivalent radiation dose scans may revolutionize the detection and monitoring of disease in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients.

x射线等效剂量光子计数检测器CT对肺气肿的评估:视觉评分和自动量化算法的评价。
目的:本研究的目的是评估视觉评分、低衰减体积(LAV)和深度学习方法在x射线剂量光子计数检测器计算机断层扫描(PCD-CT)中估计肺气肿程度的可行性和有效性,旨在探讨未来剂量减少的潜力。方法:在同一研究中,101名前瞻性入组患者使用PCD-CT进行非对比低x线和胸部x线剂量CT扫描。整体图像质量、清晰度、噪点,以及气肿的视觉形态(无、有迹、轻度、中度、融合性、晚期破坏性气肿;由2名经验丰富的放射科医生独立评估低剂量和x射线剂量图像,然后由专家共识阅读。在第二步中,使用已建立的阈值为-950 HU的LAV算法和商用深度学习模型进行自动肺气肿量化。将自动估计的肺气肿程度转换并与视觉评分评分进行比较。结果:x线剂量扫描的ct剂量指数明显低于低剂量扫描(低剂量:0.66±0.16 mGy, x线剂量:0.11±0.03 mGy, P < 0.001)。低剂量和x射线对目视肺气肿评分的解读者一致性极好(κ = 0.83)。视觉肺气肿评分一致性在低剂量和x线剂量扫描之间表现出良好的一致性(κ = 0.70),具有显著且强的相关性(Spearman ρ = 0.79)。尽管在x线剂量扫描中,微量肺气肿被低估,但在两种扫描剂量之间,高级别(轻度至晚期破坏性)肺气肿的检出率没有显著差异(P = 0.125)。尽管LAV方法预测的x射线剂量扫描肺气肿体积与低剂量扫描的预测结果有很强的相关性,而深度学习模型与低剂量扫描的预测结果有极好的显著相关性,但这两种方法都显著高估了低质量扫描的肺气肿体积(P < 0.001),深度学习模型更加稳健。此外,深度学习肺气肿严重程度估计与低剂量扫描视觉评分的一致性(κ = 0.65)和相关性(Spearman ρ = 0.64)高于LAV预测(κ = 0.48, Spearman ρ = 0.45)。结论:肺气肿的严重程度可以通过在PCD-CT上使用x射线等效剂量进行CT扫描的视觉评分来可靠地估计。在低剂量扫描中,深度学习算法与视觉评分方法表现出良好的一致性和强相关性。然而,深度学习和LAV算法都高估了x射线剂量扫描的肺气肿程度。尽管如此,x射线等效辐射剂量扫描可能会彻底改变慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者的疾病检测和监测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Investigative Radiology
Investigative Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
15.10
自引率
16.40%
发文量
188
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Investigative Radiology publishes original, peer-reviewed reports on clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, and related modalities. Emphasis is on early and timely publication. Primarily research-oriented, the journal also includes a wide variety of features of interest to clinical radiologists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信