Compatibility analysis of total lung capacity values measured by segmentation with computed tomography and helium dilution method.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Annals of Thoracic Medicine Pub Date : 2026-05-13 eCollection Date: 2026-07-01 DOI:10.4103/atm.atm_193_25
Aysegul Erinc, Ali Kirac, Damla Azakli, Banu Kahriman, Celal Satici, Erdogan Cetinkaya
{"title":"Compatibility analysis of total lung capacity values measured by segmentation with computed tomography and helium dilution method.","authors":"Aysegul Erinc, Ali Kirac, Damla Azakli, Banu Kahriman, Celal Satici, Erdogan Cetinkaya","doi":"10.4103/atm.atm_193_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate assessment of lung volumes is essential for diagnosing ventilatory defects and managing pulmonary diseases such as interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although body plethysmography is the standard method, it can be limited by patient tolerance and complexity. Helium dilution method (HDM) is a portable and cost-effective alternative, while chest computed tomography (CT) offers noninvasive volume assessment through imaging. This study aimed to evaluate the agreement and potential interchangeability between TLC values measured by CT (TLC<sub>CT</sub>) segmentation and the TLC<sub>HDM</sub> in patients with ILD and COPD.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, patients who underwent HDM and chest CT were evaluated. Based on pulmonary function tests (PFTs), patients were grouped as having restrictive or obstructive ventilatory defects. TLC<sub>CT</sub> and HDM were compared using Bland-Altman analysis to assess agreement and bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 213 patients. In the overall cohort, TLC<sub>CT</sub> was slightly lower than TLC<sub>HDM</sub> (mean difference = -0.32 L, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.50 to -0.14 L, <i>P</i> = 0.0007). In subgroup analyses, the mean bias was -0.67 L (95% CI -0.84 to -0.51 L, <i>P</i> < 0.001) for ILD and +0.78 L (95% CI 0.35-1.21 L, <i>P</i> = 0.0007) for COPD, indicating underestimation and overestimation by CT, respectively. The overall 95% limits of agreement ranged from -3.0 to +2.25 L.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both HDM and CT provide valuable lung volume data. CT may serve as a reliable alternative in patients unable to undergo PFTs. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm clinical utility.</p>","PeriodicalId":50760,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Thoracic Medicine","volume":"21 3","pages":"147-153"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13395214/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Thoracic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/atm.atm_193_25","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Accurate assessment of lung volumes is essential for diagnosing ventilatory defects and managing pulmonary diseases such as interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although body plethysmography is the standard method, it can be limited by patient tolerance and complexity. Helium dilution method (HDM) is a portable and cost-effective alternative, while chest computed tomography (CT) offers noninvasive volume assessment through imaging. This study aimed to evaluate the agreement and potential interchangeability between TLC values measured by CT (TLCCT) segmentation and the TLCHDM in patients with ILD and COPD.

Materials and methods: In this retrospective study, patients who underwent HDM and chest CT were evaluated. Based on pulmonary function tests (PFTs), patients were grouped as having restrictive or obstructive ventilatory defects. TLCCT and HDM were compared using Bland-Altman analysis to assess agreement and bias.

Results: The study included 213 patients. In the overall cohort, TLCCT was slightly lower than TLCHDM (mean difference = -0.32 L, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.50 to -0.14 L, P = 0.0007). In subgroup analyses, the mean bias was -0.67 L (95% CI -0.84 to -0.51 L, P < 0.001) for ILD and +0.78 L (95% CI 0.35-1.21 L, P = 0.0007) for COPD, indicating underestimation and overestimation by CT, respectively. The overall 95% limits of agreement ranged from -3.0 to +2.25 L.

Conclusion: Both HDM and CT provide valuable lung volume data. CT may serve as a reliable alternative in patients unable to undergo PFTs. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm clinical utility.

用计算机断层扫描和氦稀释法分割测量的总肺活量值的相容性分析。
背景:准确评估肺容量对于诊断通气缺陷和治疗肺疾病(如间质性肺疾病(ild)和慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD))至关重要。虽然身体体积脉搏图是标准的方法,但它可能受到患者耐受性和复杂性的限制。氦稀释法(HDM)是一种便携且经济的替代方法,而胸部计算机断层扫描(CT)通过成像提供无创容积评估。本研究旨在评估CT (TLCCT)分段测量的TLC值与ILD和COPD患者TLCHDM之间的一致性和潜在的互换性。材料和方法:在本回顾性研究中,对接受HDM和胸部CT检查的患者进行评估。根据肺功能测试(pft),将患者分为限制性或阻塞性通气缺陷。TLCCT和HDM比较采用Bland-Altman分析评估一致性和偏倚。结果:纳入213例患者。在整个队列中,TLCCT略低于TLCHDM(平均差异= -0.32 L, 95%可信区间[CI] -0.50 ~ -0.14 L, P = 0.0007)。在亚组分析中,ILD的平均偏倚为-0.67 L (95% CI -0.84 ~ -0.51 L, P < 0.001), COPD的平均偏倚为+0.78 L (95% CI 0.35 ~ 1.21 L, P = 0.0007),分别表明CT低估和高估。总体95%一致性范围为-3.0 ~ +2.25 l。结论:HDM和CT均提供了有价值的肺容量数据。对于无法接受pft的患者,CT可作为可靠的替代方法。有必要进行前瞻性研究以确认临床应用。
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
Annals of Thoracic Medicine
Annals of Thoracic Medicine CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal will cover studies related to multidisciplinary specialties of chest medicine, such as adult and pediatrics pulmonology, thoracic surgery, critical care medicine, respiratory care, transplantation, sleep medicine, related basic medical sciences, and more. The journal also features basic science, special reports, case reports, board review , and more. Editorials and communications to the editor that explore controversial issues and encourage further discussion by physicians dealing with chest medicine.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书