Cargando…
Variation of Densitometry on Computed Tomography in COPD – Influence of Different Software Tools
OBJECTIVES: Quantitative multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) as a potential biomarker is increasingly used for severity assessment of emphysema in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Aim of this study was to evaluate the user-independent measurement variability between five different...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4227864/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25386874 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112898 |
_version_ | 1782343891417038848 |
---|---|
author | Wielpütz, Mark O. Bardarova, Diana Weinheimer, Oliver Kauczor, Hans-Ulrich Eichinger, Monika Jobst, Bertram J. Eberhardt, Ralf Koenigkam-Santos, Marcel Puderbach, Michael Heussel, Claus P. |
author_facet | Wielpütz, Mark O. Bardarova, Diana Weinheimer, Oliver Kauczor, Hans-Ulrich Eichinger, Monika Jobst, Bertram J. Eberhardt, Ralf Koenigkam-Santos, Marcel Puderbach, Michael Heussel, Claus P. |
author_sort | Wielpütz, Mark O. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Quantitative multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) as a potential biomarker is increasingly used for severity assessment of emphysema in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Aim of this study was to evaluate the user-independent measurement variability between five different fully-automatic densitometry software tools. MATERIAL AND METHODS: MDCT and full-body plethysmography incl. forced expiratory volume in 1s and total lung capacity were available for 49 patients with advanced COPD (age = 64±9 years, forced expiratory volume in 1s = 31±6% predicted). Measurement variation regarding lung volume, emphysema volume, emphysema index, and mean lung density was evaluated for two scientific and three commercially available lung densitometry software tools designed to analyze MDCT from different scanner types. RESULTS: One scientific tool and one commercial tool failed to process most or all datasets, respectively, and were excluded. One scientific and another commercial tool analyzed 49, the remaining commercial tool 30 datasets. Lung volume, emphysema volume, emphysema index and mean lung density were significantly different amongst these three tools (p<0.001). Limits of agreement for lung volume were [−0.195, −0.052l], [−0.305, −0.131l], and [−0.123, −0.052l] with correlation coefficients of r = 1.00 each. Limits of agreement for emphysema index were [−6.2, 2.9%], [−27.0, 16.9%], and [−25.5, 18.8%], with r = 0.79 to 0.98. Correlation of lung volume with total lung capacity was good to excellent (r = 0.77 to 0.91, p<0.001), but segmented lung volume (6.7±1.3 – 6.8±1.3l) were significantly lower than total lung capacity (7.7±1.7l, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Technical incompatibilities hindered evaluation of two of five tools. The remaining three showed significant measurement variation for emphysema, hampering quantitative MDCT as a biomarker in COPD. Follow-up studies should currently use identical software, and standardization efforts should encompass software as well. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4227864 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42278642014-11-18 Variation of Densitometry on Computed Tomography in COPD – Influence of Different Software Tools Wielpütz, Mark O. Bardarova, Diana Weinheimer, Oliver Kauczor, Hans-Ulrich Eichinger, Monika Jobst, Bertram J. Eberhardt, Ralf Koenigkam-Santos, Marcel Puderbach, Michael Heussel, Claus P. PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVES: Quantitative multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) as a potential biomarker is increasingly used for severity assessment of emphysema in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Aim of this study was to evaluate the user-independent measurement variability between five different fully-automatic densitometry software tools. MATERIAL AND METHODS: MDCT and full-body plethysmography incl. forced expiratory volume in 1s and total lung capacity were available for 49 patients with advanced COPD (age = 64±9 years, forced expiratory volume in 1s = 31±6% predicted). Measurement variation regarding lung volume, emphysema volume, emphysema index, and mean lung density was evaluated for two scientific and three commercially available lung densitometry software tools designed to analyze MDCT from different scanner types. RESULTS: One scientific tool and one commercial tool failed to process most or all datasets, respectively, and were excluded. One scientific and another commercial tool analyzed 49, the remaining commercial tool 30 datasets. Lung volume, emphysema volume, emphysema index and mean lung density were significantly different amongst these three tools (p<0.001). Limits of agreement for lung volume were [−0.195, −0.052l], [−0.305, −0.131l], and [−0.123, −0.052l] with correlation coefficients of r = 1.00 each. Limits of agreement for emphysema index were [−6.2, 2.9%], [−27.0, 16.9%], and [−25.5, 18.8%], with r = 0.79 to 0.98. Correlation of lung volume with total lung capacity was good to excellent (r = 0.77 to 0.91, p<0.001), but segmented lung volume (6.7±1.3 – 6.8±1.3l) were significantly lower than total lung capacity (7.7±1.7l, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Technical incompatibilities hindered evaluation of two of five tools. The remaining three showed significant measurement variation for emphysema, hampering quantitative MDCT as a biomarker in COPD. Follow-up studies should currently use identical software, and standardization efforts should encompass software as well. Public Library of Science 2014-11-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4227864/ /pubmed/25386874 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112898 Text en © 2014 Wielpütz et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Wielpütz, Mark O. Bardarova, Diana Weinheimer, Oliver Kauczor, Hans-Ulrich Eichinger, Monika Jobst, Bertram J. Eberhardt, Ralf Koenigkam-Santos, Marcel Puderbach, Michael Heussel, Claus P. Variation of Densitometry on Computed Tomography in COPD – Influence of Different Software Tools |
title | Variation of Densitometry on Computed Tomography in COPD – Influence of Different Software Tools |
title_full | Variation of Densitometry on Computed Tomography in COPD – Influence of Different Software Tools |
title_fullStr | Variation of Densitometry on Computed Tomography in COPD – Influence of Different Software Tools |
title_full_unstemmed | Variation of Densitometry on Computed Tomography in COPD – Influence of Different Software Tools |
title_short | Variation of Densitometry on Computed Tomography in COPD – Influence of Different Software Tools |
title_sort | variation of densitometry on computed tomography in copd – influence of different software tools |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4227864/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25386874 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112898 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wielputzmarko variationofdensitometryoncomputedtomographyincopdinfluenceofdifferentsoftwaretools AT bardarovadiana variationofdensitometryoncomputedtomographyincopdinfluenceofdifferentsoftwaretools AT weinheimeroliver variationofdensitometryoncomputedtomographyincopdinfluenceofdifferentsoftwaretools AT kauczorhansulrich variationofdensitometryoncomputedtomographyincopdinfluenceofdifferentsoftwaretools AT eichingermonika variationofdensitometryoncomputedtomographyincopdinfluenceofdifferentsoftwaretools AT jobstbertramj variationofdensitometryoncomputedtomographyincopdinfluenceofdifferentsoftwaretools AT eberhardtralf variationofdensitometryoncomputedtomographyincopdinfluenceofdifferentsoftwaretools AT koenigkamsantosmarcel variationofdensitometryoncomputedtomographyincopdinfluenceofdifferentsoftwaretools AT puderbachmichael variationofdensitometryoncomputedtomographyincopdinfluenceofdifferentsoftwaretools AT heusselclausp variationofdensitometryoncomputedtomographyincopdinfluenceofdifferentsoftwaretools |