Investigation of Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening Scan “Over-Range” Issue Using Machine Learning Methods

  • Donglai HuoEmail author
  • Mark Kiehn
  • Ann Scherzinger


Low-dose computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening is recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force for high lung cancer–risk populations. In this study, we investigated an important factor affecting the CT dose—the scan length, for this CT exam. A neural network model based on the “UNET” framework was established to segment the lung region in the CT scout images. It was trained initially with 247 chest X-ray images and then with 40 CT scout images. The mean Intersection over Union (IOU) and Dice coefficient were reported to be 0.954 and 0.976, respectively. Lung scan boundaries were determined from this segmentation and compared with the boundaries marked by an expert for 150 validation images, resulting an average 4.7% difference. Seven hundred seventy CT low-dose lung screening exams were retrospectively analyzed with the validated model. The average “desired” scan length was 252 mm with a standard deviation of 28 mm. The average “over-range” was 58.5 mm or 24%. The upper boundary (superior) on average had an “over-range” of 17 mm, and the lower boundary (inferior) on average had an “over-range” of 41 mm. Further analysis of this data showed that the extent of “over-range” was independent of acquisition date, acquisition time, acquisition station, and patient age, but dependent on technologist and patient weight. We concluded that this machine learning method could effectively support quality control on the scan length for CT low-dose screening scans, enabling the eliminations of unnecessary patient dose.


CT lung cancer screening CT dose Machine learning Convolutional neural network Artificial neural network 



This work is supported by the Radiology Pilot Grant from Department of Radiology, School of Medicine in University of Colorado. We would like to thank the PACS and clinical analysis team from University of Colorado Health for providing technology support.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization: Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. 2012.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Lung Screening Trial Research Team: Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 365(5):395–409, 2011Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moyer VA, Force USPST: Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 160(5):330–338, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network: Lung Cancer Screening. 2018.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    American Cancer Society: American cancer society guidelines for the early detection of cancer.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mettler, Jr FA et al.: Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources--1950-2007. Radiology 253(2):520–531, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cai T, Giannopoulos AA, Yu S, Kelil T, Ripley B, Kumamaru KK, Rybicki FJ, Mitsouras D: Natural language processing technologies in radiology research and clinical applications. Radiographics 36(1):176–191, 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Litjens G, Kooi T, Bejnordi BE, Setio AAA, Ciompi F, Ghafoorian M, van der Laak J, van Ginneken B, Sánchez CI: A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Med Image Anal 42:60–88, 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ravi D et al.: Deep learning for health informatics. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 21(1):4–21, 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ronneberger O., Fischer P., Brox T.: U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. In: Navab N., Hornegger J., Wells W., Frangi A. (eds) Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9351. Springer, Cham, MICCAI 2015.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shiraishi J, Katsuragawa S, Ikezoe J, Matsumoto T, Kobayashi T, Komatsu KI, Matsui M, Fujita H, Kodera Y, Doi K: Development of a digital image database for chest radiographs with and without a lung nodule: receiver operating characteristic analysis of radiologists’ detection of pulmonary nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174(1):71–74, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Ginneken B, Stegmann MB, Loog M: Segmentation of anatomical structures in chest radiographs using supervised methods: a comparative study on a public database. Med Image Anal 10(1):19–40, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jeff Shepherd S, Lin P-JP, Boone JM, Cody DD, Fisher JR, Frey GD, Glasser H, Gray JE, Haus AG, Hefner LV, Holmes RL, Kobistek RJ, Ranallo FN, Rauch PL, Rossi RP, Seibert JA, Strauss KJ, Suleiman OH, Schenck JR, Thompson SK: Quality control in diagnostic radiology. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2002Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Association of Physicists in Medicine: Lung Cancer Screening CT Protocols, 2016.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Research Council: Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006, p. 422Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, School of MedicineUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical CampusAuroraUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Colorado HospitalAuroraUSA

Personalised recommendations