Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.5.888

Effect of Hybrid Kernel and Iterative Reconstruction on Objective and Subjective Analysis of Lung Nodule Calcification in Low-Dose Chest CT  

Hong, Seul Gi (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University)
Kang, Eun-Ju (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University)
Park, Jae Hyung (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University)
Choi, Won Jin (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University)
Lee, Ki-Nam (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University)
Kwon, Hee Jin (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University)
Ha, Dong-Ho (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University)
Kim, Dong Won (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University)
Kim, Sang Hyeon (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University)
Jo, Jeong-Hyun (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University)
Lee, Jongmin (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Kyungpook National University)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Radiology / v.19, no.5, 2018 , pp. 888-896 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the differences in subjective calcification detection rates and objective calcium volumes in lung nodules according to different reconstruction methods using hybrid kernel (FC13-H) and iterative reconstruction (IR). Materials and Methods: Overall, 35 patients with small (< 4 mm) calcified pulmonary nodules on chest CT were included. Raw data were reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP) or IR algorithm (AIDR-3D; Canon Medical Systems Corporation), with three types of reconstruction kernel: conventional lung kernel (FC55), FC13-H and conventional soft tissue kernel (FC13). The calcium volumes of pulmonary nodules were quantified using the modified Agatston scoring method. Two radiologists independently interpreted the role of each nodule calcification on the six types of reconstructed images (FC55/FBP, FC55/AIDR-3D, FC13-H/FBP, FC13-H/AIDR-3D, FC13/FBP, and FC13/AIDR-3D). Results: Seventy-eight calcified nodules detected on FC55/FBP images were regarded as reference standards. The calcium detection rates of FC55/AIDR-3D, FC13-H/FBP, FC13-H/AIDR-3D, FC13/FBP, and FC13/AIDR-3D protocols were 80.7%, 15.4%, 6.4%, 52.6%, and 28.2%, respectively, and FC13-H/AIDR-3D showed the smallest calcium detection rate. The calcium volume varied significantly with reconstruction protocols and FC13/AIDR-3D showed the smallest calcium volume ($0.04{\pm}0.22mm^3$), followed by FC13-H/AIDR-3D. Conclusion: Hybrid kernel and IR influence subjective detection and objective measurement of calcium in lung nodules, particularly when both techniques (FC13-H/AIDR-3D) are combined.
Keywords
Low-dose CT; Iterative reconstruction; Lung nodule; Calcification;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Katsura M, Matsuda I, Akahane M, Sato J, Akai H, Yasaka K, et al. Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur Radiol 2012;22:1613-1623   DOI
2 Lim HJ, Chung MJ, Shin KE, Hwang HS, Lee KS. The impact of iterative reconstruction in low-dose computed tomography on the evaluation of diffuse interstitial lung disease. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:950-960   DOI
3 Padole A, Ali Khawaja RD, Kalra MK, Singh S. CT radiation dose and iterative reconstruction techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204:W384-W392   DOI
4 Armato SG 3rd, Altman MB, La Riviere PJ. Automated detection of lung nodules in CT scans: effect of image reconstruction algorithm. Med Phys 2003;30:461-472   DOI
5 Willemink MJ, Leiner T, de Jong PA, de Heer LM, Nievelstein RA, Schilham AM, et al. Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography part 2: initial results in dose reduction and image quality. Eur Radiol 2013;23:1632-1642   DOI
6 Schindler A, Vliegenthart R, Schoepf UJ, Blanke P, Ebersberger U, Cho YJ, et al. Iterative image reconstruction techniques for CT coronary artery calcium quantification: comparison with traditional filtered back projection in vitro and in vivo. Radiology 2014;270:387-393   DOI
7 van Osch JA, Mouden M, van Dalen JA, Timmer JR, Reiffers S, Knollema S, et al. Influence of iterative image reconstruction on CT-based calcium score measurements. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;30:961-967
8 Grewal RG, Austin JH. CT demonstration of calcification in carcinoma of the lung. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1994;18:867-871   DOI
9 Sinsuat M, Saita S, Kawata Y, Niki N, Ohmatsu H, Tsuchida T, et al. Influence of slice thickness on diagnoses of pulmonary nodules using low-dose CT: potential dependence of detection and diagnostic agreement on features and location of nodule. Acad Radiol 2011;18:594-604   DOI
10 Fischbach F, Knollmann F, Griesshaber V, Freund T, Akkol E, Felix R. Detection of pulmonary nodules by multislice computed tomography: improved detection rate with reduced slice thickness. Eur Radiol 2003;13:2378-2383   DOI
11 National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Church TR, Black WC, Aberle DR, Berg CD, Clingan KL, et al. Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1980-1991   DOI
12 Kazerooni EA, Austin JH, Black WC, Dyer DS, Hazelton TR, Leung AN, et al.; American College of Radiology; Society of Thoracic Radiology. ACR-STR practice parameter for the performance and reporting of lung cancer screening thoracic computed tomography (CT): 2014 (Resolution 4). J Thorac Imaging 2014;29:310-316   DOI
13 Rubin GD. Data explosion: the challenge of multidetector-row CT. Eur J Radiol 2000;36:74-80   DOI
14 Strub WM, Weiss KL, Sun D. Hybrid reconstruction kernel: optimized chest CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:W115-W116   DOI
15 Khan AN, Al-Jahdali HH, Allen CM, Irion KL, Al Ghanem S, Koteyar SS. The calcified lung nodule: what does it mean? Ann Thorac Med 2010;5:67-79   DOI
16 Toshiba Aquilion ONE Operation Manual 2B201-417EN*P. Toshiba Scanner TSX-301A. Toshiba Medical System Cooperation. Chapter 12 eXam Plan Management, 2011:167-214
17 Diederich S, Wormanns D, Heindel W. Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. Eur J Radiol 2003;45:2-7   DOI
18 Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ, Zusmer NR, Viamonte M Jr, Detrano R. Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990;15:827-832   DOI
19 Christner JA, Kofler JM, McCollough CH. Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: consequences of adopting International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103 or dual-energy scanning. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:881-889   DOI
20 Webb WR. Radiologic evaluation of the solitary pulmonary nodule. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;154:701-708   DOI
21 Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, Naidich DP, McGuinness G, Miettinen OS, et al. Early Lung Cancer Action Project: overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet 1999;354:99-105   DOI
22 Swensen SJ, Jett JR, Hartman TE, Midthun DE, Sloan JA, Sykes AM, et al. Lung cancer screening with CT: Mayo Clinic experience. Radiology 2003;226:756-761   DOI
23 Wormanns D, Kohl G, Klotz E, Marheine A, Beyer F, Heindel W, et al. Volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules at multi-row detector CT: in vivo reproducibility. Eur Radiol 2004;14:86-92   DOI
24 Chiles C. Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography. Radiol Clin North Am 2014;52:27-46   DOI
25 Singh S, Kalra MK, Gilman MD, Hsieh J, Pien HH, Digumarthy SR, et al. Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: a pilot study. Radiology 2011;259:565-573   DOI
26 Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard JA, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619-628   DOI
27 Kim Y, Kim YK, Lee BE, Lee SJ, Ryu YJ, Lee JH, et al. Ultralow-dose CT of the thorax using iterative reconstruction: evaluation of image quality and radiation dose reduction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204:1197-1202   DOI