European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 8, pp 3266–3274 | Cite as

Comparison of the effects of model-based iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection algorithms on software measurements in pulmonary subsolid nodules

  • Julien G. Cohen
  • Hyungjin Kim
  • Su Bin Park
  • Bram van Ginneken
  • Gilbert R. Ferretti
  • Chang Hyun Lee
  • Jin Mo Goo
  • Chang Min Park
Chest

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the differences between filtered back projection (FBP) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) algorithms on semi-automatic measurements in subsolid nodules (SSNs).

Methods

Unenhanced CT scans of 73 SSNs obtained using the same protocol and reconstructed with both FBP and MBIR algorithms were evaluated by two radiologists. Diameter, mean attenuation, mass and volume of whole nodules and their solid components were measured. Intra- and interobserver variability and differences between FBP and MBIR were then evaluated using Bland–Altman method and Wilcoxon tests.

Results

Longest diameter, volume and mass of nodules and those of their solid components were significantly higher using MBIR (p < 0.05) with mean differences of 1.1% (limits of agreement, −6.4 to 8.5%), 3.2% (−20.9 to 27.3%) and 2.9% (−16.9 to 22.7%) and 3.2% (−20.5 to 27%), 6.3% (−51.9 to 64.6%), 6.6% (−50.1 to 63.3%), respectively. The limits of agreement between FBP and MBIR were within the range of intra- and interobserver variability for both algorithms with respect to the diameter, volume and mass of nodules and their solid components. There were no significant differences in intra- or interobserver variability between FBP and MBIR (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Semi-automatic measurements of SSNs significantly differed between FBP and MBIR; however, the differences were within the range of measurement variability.

Key points

Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of measurements did not differ between FBP and MBIR.

Differences in SSNs’ semi-automatic measurement induced by reconstruction algorithms were not clinically significant.

Semi-automatic measurement may be conducted regardless of reconstruction algorithm.

SSNs’ semi-automated classification agreement (pure vs. part-solid) did not significantly differ between algorithms.

Keywords

Lung neoplasms Multidetector computed tomography Iterative reconstruction Subsolid nodule Measurement variability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Chang Min Park, MD, Ph.D. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. This study has received funding by the Korean Foundation for Cancer Research (grant number: CB-2011-02-01). Julien G. Cohen acknowledges support from the Société Francaise de Radiologie (SFR) and Collège des Enseignants de Radiologie de France (CERF). Ms. Su Bin Park is an expert in statistics and she provided statistical advice in this study. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board. Study subjects have not been previously reported or published before. Methodology: retrospective, observational, performed at one institution.

References

  1. 1.
    Naidich DP, Bankier AA, MacMahon H et al (2013) Recommendations for the management of subsolid pulmonary nodules detected at CT: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology 266:304–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee HY, Choi YL, Lee KS et al (2014) Pure ground-glass opacity neoplastic lung nodules: histopathology, imaging, and management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:W224–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hasegawa M, Sone S, Takashima S et al (2000) Growth rate of small lung cancers detected on mass CT screening. Br J Radiol 73:1252–1259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kakinuma R, Muramatsu Y, Kusumoto M et al (2015) Solitary pure ground-glass nodules 5 mm or smaller: frequency of growth. Radiology 276:873–882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Song YS, Park CM, Park SJ, Lee SM, Jeon YK, Goo JM (2014) Volume and mass doubling times of persistent pulmonary subsolid nodules detected in patients without known malignancy. Radiology 273:276–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang B, Hwang JH, Choi YH et al (2013) Natural history of pure ground-glass opacity lung nodules detected by low-dose CT scan. Chest 143:172–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Matsuguma H, Mori K, Nakahara R et al (2013) Characteristics of subsolid pulmonary nodules showing growth during follow-up with CT scanning. Chest 143:436–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kobayashi Y, Fukui T, Ito S et al (2013) How long should small lung lesions of ground-glass opacity be followed? J Thorac Oncol 8:309–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee SW, Leem CS, Kim TJ et al (2013) The long-term course of ground-glass opacities detected on thin-section computed tomography. Respir Med 107:904–910CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brenner DJ (2004) Radiation risks potentially associated with low-dose CT screening of adult smokers for lung cancer. Radiology 231:440–445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vardhanabhuti V, Loader RJ, Mitchell GR, Riordan RD, Roobottom CA (2013) Image quality assessment of standard- and low-dose chest CT using filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and novel model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:545–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Padole A, Ali Khawaja RD, Kalra MK, Singh S (2015) CT radiation dose and iterative reconstruction techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:W384–392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mathieu KB, Ai H, Fox PS et al (2014) Radiation dose reduction for CT lung cancer screening using ASIR and MBIR: a phantom study. J Appl Clin Med Phys 15:4515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vardhanabhuti V, Ilyas S, Gutteridge C, Freeman SJ, Roobottom CA (2013) Comparison of image quality between filtered back-projection and the adaptive statistical and novel model-based iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal CT for renal calculi. Insights Imaging 4:661–669CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim H, Park CM, Kim SH et al (2014) Persistent pulmonary subsolid nodules: model-based iterative reconstruction for nodule classification and measurement variability on low-dose CT. Eur Radiol 24:2700–2708CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wormanns D, Kohl G, Klotz E et al (2004) Volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules at multi-row detector CT: in vivo reproducibility. Eur Radiol 14:86–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scholten ET, de Jong PA, Jacobs C et al (2015) Interscan variation of semi-automated volumetry of subsolid pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol 25:1040–1047CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen JG, Goo JM, Yoo RE et al (2016) Software performance in segmenting ground-glass and solid components of subsolid nodules in pulmonary adenocarcinomas. Eur Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4317-3 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Katsura M, Matsuda I, Akahane M et al (2012) Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur Radiol 22:1613–1623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Hoop B, Gietema H, van Ginneken B, Zanen P, Groenewegen G, Prokop M (2009) A comparison of six software packages for evaluation of solid lung nodules using semi-automated volumetry: what is the minimum increase in size to detect growth in repeated CT examinations. Eur Radiol 19:800–808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chen B, Barnhart H, Richard S, Robins M, Colsher J, Samei E (2013) Volumetric quantification of lung nodules in CT with iterative reconstruction (ASiR and MBIR). Med Phys 40:111902CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Riel SJ, Sanchez CI, Bankier AA et al (2015) Observer variability for classification of pulmonary nodules on low-dose CT images and its effect on nodule management. Radiology 277:863–871CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Penn A, Ma M, Chou BB, Tseng JR, Phan P (2015) Inter-reader variability when applying the 2013 Fleischner guidelines for potential solitary subsolid lung nodules. Acta Radiol 56:1180–1186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julien G. Cohen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hyungjin Kim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Su Bin Park
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bram van Ginneken
    • 4
  • Gilbert R. Ferretti
    • 3
    • 5
  • Chang Hyun Lee
    • 1
  • Jin Mo Goo
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
  • Chang Min Park
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of RadiologySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Institute of Radiation MedicineSeoul National University Medical Research CenterSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Clinique Universitaire de Radiologie et Imagerie Médicale (CURIM), Université Grenoble AlpesCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de GrenobleGrenoble Cedex 9France
  4. 4.Department of Radiology and Nuclear MedicineRadboud University Nijmegen Medical CenterNijmegenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.INSERM U 823Institut A BonniotLa TroncheFrance
  6. 6.Cancer Research InstituteSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations