• Mizuho Nishio, Sumiaki Matsumoto, Maho Tsubakimoto, Tatsuya Nishii, Hisanobu Koyama, Yoshiharu Ohno, and Kazuro Sugimura.
• Advanced Biomedical Imaging Research Center, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo 650-0017, Japan; Division of Functional and Diagnostic Imaging Research, Department of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan. Electronic address: nmizuho@med.kobe-u.ac.jp.
• Acad Radiol. 2015 Mar 1; 22 (3): 330-6.

Rationale And ObjectivesTo evaluate paired inspiratory/expiratory computed tomography (CT; iCT/eCT) and deformable image registration for quantitative and qualitative assessment of airflow limitation in smokers.Materials And MethodsPaired iCT/eCT images acquired from 35 smokers (30 men and 5 women) were coregistered and subtraction images (air trapping CT images [aCT]) generated. To evaluate emphysema quantitatively, the percentage of low-attenuation volume (LAV%) on iCT was calculated at -950 HU, as were mean and kurtosis on aCT for quantitative assessment of air trapping. Parametric response maps of emphysema (PRMe) and of functional small airways disease (PRMs) were also obtained. For qualitative evaluation of emphysema, low-attenuation areas on iCT were scored by consensus of two radiologists using Goddard classification. To assess air trapping qualitatively, the degree of air trapping on aCT was scored. For each quantitative and qualitative index, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient for forced expiratory flow in 1 second was calculated, and differences in correlation coefficients were statistically tested.ResultsThe correlation coefficients for the indices were as follows: mean on aCT, 0.800; kurtosis on aCT, -0.726; LAV%, -0.472; PRMe, -0.570; PRMs, -0.565; addition of PRMe and PRMs, -0.653; emphysema score, -0.502; air trapping score, -0.793. The indices showing significant differences were as follows: mean on aCT and addition of PRMe and PRMs (P = 1.43 × 10(-8)); air trapping score and emphysema score (P = .0169).ConclusionsAir trapping images yielded more accurate quantitative and qualitative evaluation of airflow limitation than did LAV%, PRMe, PRMs, and Goddard classification.Copyright © 2015 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

21 keywords...

hide…