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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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