Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 12/2012

Open Access 01-12-2012 | Chest

Variation in quantitative CT air trapping in heavy smokers on repeat CT examinations

Authors: Onno M. Mets, Ivana Isgum, Christian P. Mol, Hester A. Gietema, Pieter Zanen, Mathias Prokop, Pim A. de Jong

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 12/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the variation in quantitative computed tomography (CT) measures of air trapping in low-dose chest CTs of heavy smokers.

Methods

We analysed 45 subjects from a lung cancer screening trial, examined by CT twice within 3 months. Inspiratory and expiratory low-dose CT was obtained using breath hold instructions. CT air trapping was defined as the percentage of voxels in expiratory CT with an attenuation below −856 HU (EXP−856) and the expiratory to inspiratory ratio of mean lung density (E/I-ratioMLD). Variation was determined using limits of agreement, defined as 1.96 times the standard deviation of the mean difference. The effect of both lung volume correction and breath hold reproducibility was determined.

Results

The limits of agreement for uncorrected CT air trapping measurements were −15.0 to 11.7 % (EXP−856) and −9.8 to 8.0 % (E/I-ratioMLD). Good breath hold reproducibility significantly narrowed the limits for EXP−856 (−10.7 to 7.5 %, P = 0.002), but not for E/I-ratioMLD (−9.2 to 7.9 %, P = 0.75). Statistical lung volume correction did not improve the limits for EXP−856 (−12.5 to 8.8 %, P = 0.12) and E/I-ratioMLD (−7.5 to 5.8 %, P = 0.17).

Conclusions

Quantitative air trapping measures on low-dose CT of heavy smokers show considerable variation on repeat CT examinations, regardless of lung volume correction or reproducible breath holds.

Key Points

• Computed tomography quantitatively measures small airways disease in heavy smokers.
• Measurements of air trapping vary considerably on repeat CT examinations.
• Variation remains substantial even with reproducible breath holds and lung volume correction.
Literature
1.
Murray CJ, Lopez AD (1997) Alternative projections of mortality and disability by cause 1990–2020: global burden of disease study. Lancet 349:1498–1504PubMedCrossRef
2.
Mathers CD, Loncar D (2006) Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med 3:e442PubMedCrossRef
3.
McDonough JE, Yuan R, Suzuki M et al (2011) Small-airway obstruction and emphysema in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 365:1567–1575PubMedCrossRef
4.
Vestbo J, Anderson W, Coxson HO et al (2008) Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to identify predictive surrogate end-points (ECLIPSE). Eur Respir J 31:869–873PubMedCrossRef
5.
Regan EA, Hokanson JE, Murphy JR et al (2010) Genetic epidemiology of COPD (COPDGene) study design. COPD 7:32–43PubMedCrossRef
6.
Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD et al (2011) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 365:395–409PubMedCrossRef
7.
van Iersel CA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G et al (2007) Risk-based selection from the general population in a screening trial: selection criteria, recruitment and power for the Dutch-Belgian randomised lung cancer multi-slice CT screening trial (NELSON). Int J Cancer 120:868–874PubMedCrossRef
8.
Gietema HA, Schilham AM, van Ginneken B, van Klaveren RJ, Lammers JW, Prokop M (2007) Monitoring of smoking-induced emphysema with CT in a lung cancer screening setting: detection of real increase in extent of emphysema. Radiology 244:890–897PubMedCrossRef
9.
Chong D, Brown MS, Kim HJ et al (2012) Reproducibility of volume and densitometric measures of emphysema on repeat computed tomography with an interval of 1 week. Eur Radiol 22:287–294PubMedCrossRef
10.
Mets OM, Buckens CF, Zanen P et al (2011) Identification of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in lung cancer screening computed tomographic scans. JAMA 306:1775–1781PubMedCrossRef
11.
van Rikxoort EM, de Hoop B, Viergever MA, Prokop M, van Ginneken B (2009) Automatic lung segmentation from thoracic computed tomography scans using a hybrid approach with error detection. Med Phys 36:2934–2947PubMedCrossRef
12.
Schilham AM, van Ginneken B, Gietema H, Prokop M (2006) Local noise weighted filtering for emphysema scoring of low-dose CT images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 25:451–463PubMedCrossRef
13.
O'Donnell RA, Peebles C, Ward JA et al (2004) Relationship between peripheral airway dysfunction, airway obstruction, and neutrophilic inflammation in COPD. Thorax 59:837–842PubMedCrossRef
14.
Kalender WA, Rienmuller R, Seissler W, Behr J, Welke M, Fichte H (1990) Measurement of pulmonary parenchymal attenuation: use of spirometric gating with quantitative CT. Radiology 175:265–268PubMed
15.
Lamers RJ, Thelissen GR, Kessels AG, Wouters EF, van Engelshoven JM (1994) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: evaluation with spirometrically controlled CT lung densitometry. Radiology 193:109–113PubMed
16.
Madani A, Van Muylem A, Gevenois PA (2010) Pulmonary emphysema: effect of lung volume on objective quantification at thin-section CT. Radiology 257:260–268PubMedCrossRef
17.
Stoel BC, Putter H, Bakker ME et al (2008) Volume correction in computed tomography densitometry for follow-up studies on pulmonary emphysema. Proc Am Thorac Soc 5:919–924PubMedCrossRef
18.
Dirksen A, Friis M, Olesen KP, Skovgaard LT, Sorensen K (1997) Progress of emphysema in severe alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency as assessed by annual CT. Acta Radiol 38:826–832PubMed
19.
Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45:255–268PubMedCrossRef
20.
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310PubMedCrossRef
21.
Sandvik L, Olsson B (1982) A nearly distribution-free test for comparing dispersion in paired samples. Biometrika 69:484–485CrossRef
22.
Levene H (1960) Robust tests for equality of variance. In: Olkin I (ed) Contributions to probability and statistics. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, pp 278–292
23.
Hogg JC, Chu F, Utokaparch S et al (2004) The nature of small-airway obstruction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 350:2645–2653PubMedCrossRef
24.
McGregor A, Roberts HC, Dong Z et al (2010) Repeated low-dose computed tomography in current and former smokers for quantification of emphysema. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:933–938PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Variation in quantitative CT air trapping in heavy smokers on repeat CT examinations
Authors
Onno M. Mets
Ivana Isgum
Christian P. Mol
Hester A. Gietema
Pieter Zanen
Mathias Prokop
Pim A. de Jong
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 12/2012
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2526-y

Other articles of this Issue 12/2012

European Radiology 12/2012 Go to the issue

Computer Applications

Intelligent image retrieval based on radiology reports

Chest

High-resolution CT of nontuberculous mycobacterium infection in adult CF patients: diagnostic accuracy

Chest

Improved detection of focal pneumonia by chest radiography with bone suppression imaging

Breast

Impact of menopausal status on background parenchymal enhancement and fibroglandular tissue on breast MRI

Breast

Combination of chemical suppression techniques for dual suppression of fat and silicone at diffusion-weighted MR imaging in women with breast implants

Interventional

Symptomatic lumbar facet joint cysts treated by CT-guided intracystic and intra-articular steroid injections