Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative analysis of emphysema and airway measurements according to iterative reconstruction algorithms: comparison of filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and model-based iterative reconstruction

  • Chest
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate filtered back projection (FBP) and two iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms and their effects on the quantitative analysis of lung parenchyma and airway measurements on computed tomography (CT) images.

Methods

Low-dose chest CT obtained in 281 adult patients were reconstructed using three algorithms: FBP, adaptive statistical IR (ASIR) and model-based IR (MBIR). Measurements of each dataset were compared: total lung volume, emphysema index (EI), airway measurements of the lumen and wall area as well as average wall thickness. Accuracy of airway measurements of each algorithm was also evaluated using an airway phantom.

Results

EI using a threshold of −950 HU was significantly different among the three algorithms in decreasing order of FBP (2.30 %), ASIR (1.49 %) and MBIR (1.20 %) (P < 0.01). Wall thickness was also significantly different among the three algorithms with FBP (2.09 mm) demonstrating thicker walls than ASIR (2.00 mm) and MBIR (1.88 mm) (P < 0.01). Airway phantom analysis revealed that MBIR showed the most accurate value for airway measurements.

Conclusion

The three algorithms presented different EIs and wall thicknesses, decreasing in the order of FBP, ASIR and MBIR. Thus, care should be taken in selecting the appropriate IR algorithm on quantitative analysis of the lung.

Key Points

• Computed tomography is increasingly used to provide objective measurements of intra-thoracic structures.

• Iterative reconstruction algorithms can affect quantitative measurements of lung and airways.

• Care should be taken in selecting reconstruction algorithms in longitudinal analysis.

• Model-based iterative reconstruction seems to provide the most accurate airway measurements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

FBP:

Filtered back projection

ASIR:

Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction

MBIR:

Model-based iterative reconstruction

EI:

Emphysema index

References

  1. Lee CH, Goo JM, Ye HJ et al (2008) Radiation dose modulation techniques in the multidetector CT era: from basics to practice. Radiographics 28:1451–1459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee TY, Chhem RK (2010) Impact of new technologies on dose reduction in CT. Eur J Radiol 76:28–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W, Silva AC, Paden RG, Wu Q (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:713–719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 22:1613–1623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC, Kujak JL, Lawder HJ, Pavlicek W (2009) Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:764–771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mitsumori LM, Shuman WP, Busey JM, Kolokythas O, Koprowicz KM (2012) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection in the same patient: 64 channel liver CT image quality and patient radiation dose. Eur Radiol 22:138–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Prakash P, Kalra MK, Digumarthy SR et al (2010) Radiation dose reduction with chest computed tomography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique: initial experience. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:40–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Silva AC, Lawder HJ, Hara A, Kujak J, Pavlicek W (2010) Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:191–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yamada Y, Jinzaki M, Tanami Y et al (2012) Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for ultralow-dose computed tomography of the lung: a pilot study. Invest Radiol 47:482–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Xie X, de Jong PA, Oudkerk M et al (2012) Morphological measurements in computed tomography correlate with airflow obstruction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 22:2085–2093

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yoon SH, Goo JM, Goo HW (2013) Quantitative thoracic CT techniques in adults: can they be applied in the pediatric population? Pediatr Radiol 43:308–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Boedeker KL, McNitt-Gray MF, Rogers SR et al (2004) Emphysema: effect of reconstruction algorithm on CT imaging measures. Radiology 232:295–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gierada DS, Bierhals AJ, Choong CK et al (2010) Effects of CT section thickness and reconstruction kernel on emphysema quantification relationship to the magnitude of the CT emphysema index. Acad Radiol 17:146–156

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Park SJ, Lee CH, Goo JM, Heo CY, Kim JH (2012) Inter-scan repeatability of CT-based lung densitometry in the surveillance of emphysema in a lung cancer screening setting. Eur J Radiol 81:e554–e560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mets OM, Willemink MJ, de Kort FP et al (2012) The effect of iterative reconstruction on computed tomography assessment of emphysema, air trapping and airway dimensions. Eur Radiol 22:2103–2109

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nishio M, Matsumoto S, Ohno Y et al (2012) Emphysema quantification by low-dose CT: potential impact of adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:595–601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Makita H, Nasuhara Y, Nagai K et al (2007) Characterisation of phenotypes based on severity of emphysema in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax 62:932–937

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Singh S, Kalra MK, Gilman MD et al (2011) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: a pilot study. Radiology 259:565–573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hesselbacher SE, Ross R, Schabath MB et al (2011) Cross-sectional analysis of the utility of pulmonary function tests in predicting emphysema in ever-smokers. Int J Environ Res Public Health 8:1324–1340

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gierada DS, Pilgram TK, Whiting BR et al (2007) Comparison of standard- and low-radiation-dose CT for quantification of emphysema. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:42–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kinsella M, Müller NL, Abboud RT, Morrison NJ, DyBuncio A (1990) Quantitation of emphysema by computed tomography using a "density mask" program and correlation with pulmonary function tests. Chest 97:315–321

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gevenois PA, de Maertelaer V, De Vuyst P, Zanen J, Yernault JC (1995) Comparison of computed density and macroscopic morphometry in pulmonary emphysema. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 152:653–657

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gevenois PA, De Vuyst P, de Maertelaer V et al (1996) Comparison of computed density and microscopic morphometry in pulmonary emphysema. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 154:187–192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yuan R, Mayo JR, Hogg JC et al (2007) The effects of radiation dose and CT manufacturer on measurements of lung densitometry. Chest 132:617–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Park KJ, Bergin CJ, Clausen JL (1999) Quantitation of emphysema with three-dimensional CT densitometry: comparison with two-dimensional analysis, visual emphysema scores, and pulmonary function test results. Radiology 211:541–547

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Takahashi M, Okada H, Oguni N et al (2011) How accurate is CT morphometry of airway? Phantom and clinical validation study. Eur J Radiol 80:e524–e530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bafadhel M, Umar I, Gupta S et al (2011) The role of CT scanning in multidimensional phenotyping of COPD. Chest 140:634–642

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Madani A, De Maertelaer V, Zanen J, Gevenois PA (2007) Pulmonary emphysema: radiation dose and section thickness at multidetector CT quantification—comparison with macroscopic and microscopic morphometry. Radiology 243:250–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Research Settlement Fund for the new faculty of SNU.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ji Yung Choo

    Present address: Department of Radiology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, and Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea

    Ji Yung Choo, Jin Mo Goo, Chang Hyun Lee, Chang Min Park, Sang Joon Park & Mi-Suk Shim

  2. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

    Jin Mo Goo, Chang Min Park & Sang Joon Park

Authors
  1. Ji Yung Choo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jin Mo Goo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chang Hyun Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chang Min Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sang Joon Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mi-Suk Shim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jin Mo Goo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Choo, J.Y., Goo, J.M., Lee, C.H. et al. Quantitative analysis of emphysema and airway measurements according to iterative reconstruction algorithms: comparison of filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and model-based iterative reconstruction. Eur Radiol 24, 799–806 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3078-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3078-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation