Lung volume assessment for mean dark-field coefficient calculation using different determination methods.

Abstract

Background: Accurate lung volume determination is crucial for reliable dark-field imaging. We compared different approaches for the determination of lung volume in mean dark-field coefficient calculation.

Methods: In this retrospective analysis of data prospectively acquired between October 2018 and October 2020, patients at least 18 years of age who underwent chest computed tomography (CT) were screened for study participation. Inclusion criteria were the ability to consent and to stand upright without help. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, lung cancer, pleural effusion, atelectasis, air space disease, ground-glass opacities, and pneumothorax. Lung volume was calculated using four methods: conventional radiography (CR) using shape information; a convolutional neural network (CNN) trained for CR; CT-based volume estimation; and results from pulmonary function testing (PFT). Results were compared using a Student t-test and Spearman ρ correlation statistics.

Results: We studied 81 participants (51 men, 30 women), aged 64 ± 12 years (mean ± standard deviation). All lung volumes derived from the various methods were different from each other: CR, 7.27 ± 1.64 L; CNN, 4.91 ± 1.05 L; CT, 5.25 ± 1.36 L; PFT, 6.54 L ± 1.52 L; p < 0.001 for all comparisons. A high positive correlation was found for all combinations (p < 0.001 for all), the highest one being between CT and CR (ρ = 0.88) and the lowest one between PFT and CNN (ρ = 0.78).

Conclusion: Lung volume and therefore mean dark-field coefficient calculation is highly dependent on the method used, taking into consideration different positioning and inhalation depths.

Relevance statement: This study underscores the impact of the method used for lung volume determination. In the context of mean dark-field coefficient calculation, CR-based methods are more desirable because both dark-field images and conventional images are acquired at the same breathing state, and therefore, biases due to differences in inhalation depth are eliminated.

Key points: Lung volume measurements vary significantly between different determination methods. Mean dark-field coefficient calculations require the same method to ensure comparability. Radiography-based methods simplify workflows and minimize biases, making them most suitable.