Effect of contrast enhancement on diagnosis of interstitial lung abnormality in automatic quantitative CT measurement.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Jaeyeon Choi, Yura Ahn, Youngjae Kim, Han Na Noh, Kyung-Hyun Do, Joon Beom Seo, Sang Min Lee
{"title":"Effect of contrast enhancement on diagnosis of interstitial lung abnormality in automatic quantitative CT measurement.","authors":"Jaeyeon Choi, Yura Ahn, Youngjae Kim, Han Na Noh, Kyung-Hyun Do, Joon Beom Seo, Sang Min Lee","doi":"10.1007/s00330-025-11715-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the effect of contrast enhancement on the diagnosis of interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) in automatic quantitative CT measurement in patients with paired pre- and post-contrast scans.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients who underwent chest CT for thoracic surgery between April 2017 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. ILA quantification was performed using deep learning-based automated software. Cases were categorized as ILA or non-ILA according to the Fleischner Society's definition, based on the quantification results or radiologist assessment (reference standard). Measurement variability, agreement, and diagnostic performance between the pre- and post-contrast scans were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 1134 included patients, post-contrast scans quantified a slightly larger volume of nonfibrotic ILA (mean difference: -0.2%), due to increased ground-glass opacity and reticulation volumes (-0.2% and -0.1%), whereas the fibrotic ILA volume remained unchanged (0.0%). ILA was diagnosed in 15 (1.3%), 22 (1.9%), and 40 (3.5%) patients by pre- and post-contrast scans and radiologists, respectively. The agreement between the pre- and post-contrast scans was substantial (κ = 0.75), but both pre-contrast (κ = 0.46) and post-contrast (κ = 0.54) scans demonstrated moderate agreement with the radiologist. The sensitivity for ILA (32.5% vs. 42.5%, p = 0.221) and specificity for non-ILA (99.8% vs. 99.5%, p = 0.248) were comparable between pre- and post-contrast scans. Radiologist's reclassification for equivocal ILA due to unilateral abnormalities increased the sensitivity for ILA (67.5% and 75.0%, respectively) in both pre- and post-contrast scans.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Applying automated quantification on post-contrast scans appears to be acceptable in terms of agreement and diagnostic performance; however, radiologists may need to improve sensitivity reclassifying equivocal ILA.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question The effect of contrast enhancement on the automated quantification of interstitial lung abnormality (ILA) remains unknown. Findings Automated quantification measured slightly larger ground-glass opacity and reticulation volumes on post-contrast scans than on pre-contrast scans; however, contrast enhancement did not affect the sensitivity for interstitial lung abnormality. Clinical relevance Applying automated quantification on post-contrast scans appears to be acceptable in terms of agreement and diagnostic performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-025-11715-w","RegionNum":2,"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

Objective: To investigate the effect of contrast enhancement on the diagnosis of interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) in automatic quantitative CT measurement in patients with paired pre- and post-contrast scans.

Materials and methods: Patients who underwent chest CT for thoracic surgery between April 2017 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. ILA quantification was performed using deep learning-based automated software. Cases were categorized as ILA or non-ILA according to the Fleischner Society's definition, based on the quantification results or radiologist assessment (reference standard). Measurement variability, agreement, and diagnostic performance between the pre- and post-contrast scans were evaluated.

Results: In 1134 included patients, post-contrast scans quantified a slightly larger volume of nonfibrotic ILA (mean difference: -0.2%), due to increased ground-glass opacity and reticulation volumes (-0.2% and -0.1%), whereas the fibrotic ILA volume remained unchanged (0.0%). ILA was diagnosed in 15 (1.3%), 22 (1.9%), and 40 (3.5%) patients by pre- and post-contrast scans and radiologists, respectively. The agreement between the pre- and post-contrast scans was substantial (κ = 0.75), but both pre-contrast (κ = 0.46) and post-contrast (κ = 0.54) scans demonstrated moderate agreement with the radiologist. The sensitivity for ILA (32.5% vs. 42.5%, p = 0.221) and specificity for non-ILA (99.8% vs. 99.5%, p = 0.248) were comparable between pre- and post-contrast scans. Radiologist's reclassification for equivocal ILA due to unilateral abnormalities increased the sensitivity for ILA (67.5% and 75.0%, respectively) in both pre- and post-contrast scans.

Conclusion: Applying automated quantification on post-contrast scans appears to be acceptable in terms of agreement and diagnostic performance; however, radiologists may need to improve sensitivity reclassifying equivocal ILA.

Key points: Question The effect of contrast enhancement on the automated quantification of interstitial lung abnormality (ILA) remains unknown. Findings Automated quantification measured slightly larger ground-glass opacity and reticulation volumes on post-contrast scans than on pre-contrast scans; however, contrast enhancement did not affect the sensitivity for interstitial lung abnormality. Clinical relevance Applying automated quantification on post-contrast scans appears to be acceptable in terms of agreement and diagnostic performance.

CT自动定量测量中增强对比对肺间质异常诊断的影响。
目的:探讨对比增强在CT自动定量测量中对配对对比前后肺间质性异常(ILA)的诊断作用。材料与方法:回顾性分析2017年4月至2020年12月期间行胸部CT胸外科手术的患者。使用基于深度学习的自动化软件进行ILA量化。根据Fleischner协会的定义,根据量化结果或放射科医生评估(参考标准),将病例分类为ILA或非ILA。测量变异性,一致性和诊断性能之间的前后对比扫描进行评估。结果:在1134例纳入的患者中,由于磨玻璃不透明和网状体积增加(-0.2%和-0.1%),造影后扫描量化的非纤维化ILA体积略大(平均差:-0.2%),而纤维化ILA体积保持不变(0.0%)。分别有15例(1.3%)、22例(1.9%)和40例(3.5%)患者通过对比前和对比后扫描和放射科医生诊断出ILA。对比前和对比后扫描的一致性是显著的(κ = 0.75),但对比前(κ = 0.46)和对比后(κ = 0.54)扫描显示与放射科医生的一致性中等。对比前后,ILA的敏感性(32.5% vs. 42.5%, p = 0.221)和非ILA的特异性(99.8% vs. 99.5%, p = 0.248)具有可比性。放射科医生对单侧异常导致的模棱两可性ILA的重新分类增加了对比前和对比后扫描对ILA的敏感性(分别为67.5%和75.0%)。结论:在造影后扫描中应用自动量化在一致性和诊断性能方面似乎是可以接受的;然而,放射科医生可能需要提高敏感性,重新分类模棱两可的ILA。对比增强对肺间质性异常(ILA)自动定量的影响尚不清楚。自动定量测量对比后扫描的毛玻璃不透明度和网状体积略大于对比前扫描;然而,对比增强不影响对肺间质异常的敏感性。就一致性和诊断性能而言,在造影后扫描上应用自动量化似乎是可以接受的。
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
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
×
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