Cargando…

Evaluation of the ΔV 4D CT ventilation calculation method using in vivo xenon CT ventilation data and comparison to other methods

Ventilation distribution calculation using 4D CT has shown promising potential in several clinical applications. This study evaluated the direct geometric ventilation calculation method, namely the ΔV method, with xenon‐enhanced CT (XeCT) ventilation data from four sheep, and compared it with two ot...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Geoffrey G., Latifi, Kujtim, Du, Kaifang, Reinhardt, Joseph M., Christensen, Gary E., Ding, Kai, Feygelman, Vladimir, Moros, Eduardo G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874808/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27074479
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i2.5985
_version_ 1783310235573682176
author Zhang, Geoffrey G.
Latifi, Kujtim
Du, Kaifang
Reinhardt, Joseph M.
Christensen, Gary E.
Ding, Kai
Feygelman, Vladimir
Moros, Eduardo G.
author_facet Zhang, Geoffrey G.
Latifi, Kujtim
Du, Kaifang
Reinhardt, Joseph M.
Christensen, Gary E.
Ding, Kai
Feygelman, Vladimir
Moros, Eduardo G.
author_sort Zhang, Geoffrey G.
collection PubMed
description Ventilation distribution calculation using 4D CT has shown promising potential in several clinical applications. This study evaluated the direct geometric ventilation calculation method, namely the ΔV method, with xenon‐enhanced CT (XeCT) ventilation data from four sheep, and compared it with two other published methods, the Jacobian and the Hounsfield unit (HU) methods. Spearman correlation coefficient (SCC) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) were used for the evaluation and comparison. The average SCC with one standard deviation was [Formula: see text] with a range between 0.29 and 0.61 between the XeCT and DLV ventilation distributions. The average DSC value for lower 30% ventilation volumes between the XeCT and ΔV ventilation distributions was [Formula: see text] with a range between 0.48 and 0.63. Ventilation difference introduced by deformable image registration errors improved with smoothing. In conclusion, ventilation distributions generated using ΔV‐4D CT and deformable image registration are in reasonably agreement with the in vivo XeCT measured ventilation distribution. PACS number(s): 87.57.N‐, 87.57.nj, 87.57.Q‐, 87.85.Pq
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5874808
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58748082018-04-02 Evaluation of the ΔV 4D CT ventilation calculation method using in vivo xenon CT ventilation data and comparison to other methods Zhang, Geoffrey G. Latifi, Kujtim Du, Kaifang Reinhardt, Joseph M. Christensen, Gary E. Ding, Kai Feygelman, Vladimir Moros, Eduardo G. J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging Ventilation distribution calculation using 4D CT has shown promising potential in several clinical applications. This study evaluated the direct geometric ventilation calculation method, namely the ΔV method, with xenon‐enhanced CT (XeCT) ventilation data from four sheep, and compared it with two other published methods, the Jacobian and the Hounsfield unit (HU) methods. Spearman correlation coefficient (SCC) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) were used for the evaluation and comparison. The average SCC with one standard deviation was [Formula: see text] with a range between 0.29 and 0.61 between the XeCT and DLV ventilation distributions. The average DSC value for lower 30% ventilation volumes between the XeCT and ΔV ventilation distributions was [Formula: see text] with a range between 0.48 and 0.63. Ventilation difference introduced by deformable image registration errors improved with smoothing. In conclusion, ventilation distributions generated using ΔV‐4D CT and deformable image registration are in reasonably agreement with the in vivo XeCT measured ventilation distribution. PACS number(s): 87.57.N‐, 87.57.nj, 87.57.Q‐, 87.85.Pq John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5874808/ /pubmed/27074479 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i2.5985 Text en © 2016 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Imaging
Zhang, Geoffrey G.
Latifi, Kujtim
Du, Kaifang
Reinhardt, Joseph M.
Christensen, Gary E.
Ding, Kai
Feygelman, Vladimir
Moros, Eduardo G.
Evaluation of the ΔV 4D CT ventilation calculation method using in vivo xenon CT ventilation data and comparison to other methods
title Evaluation of the ΔV 4D CT ventilation calculation method using in vivo xenon CT ventilation data and comparison to other methods
title_full Evaluation of the ΔV 4D CT ventilation calculation method using in vivo xenon CT ventilation data and comparison to other methods
title_fullStr Evaluation of the ΔV 4D CT ventilation calculation method using in vivo xenon CT ventilation data and comparison to other methods
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the ΔV 4D CT ventilation calculation method using in vivo xenon CT ventilation data and comparison to other methods
title_short Evaluation of the ΔV 4D CT ventilation calculation method using in vivo xenon CT ventilation data and comparison to other methods
title_sort evaluation of the δv 4d ct ventilation calculation method using in vivo xenon ct ventilation data and comparison to other methods
topic Medical Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874808/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27074479
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i2.5985
work_keys_str_mv AT zhanggeoffreyg evaluationofthedv4dctventilationcalculationmethodusinginvivoxenonctventilationdataandcomparisontoothermethods
AT latifikujtim evaluationofthedv4dctventilationcalculationmethodusinginvivoxenonctventilationdataandcomparisontoothermethods
AT dukaifang evaluationofthedv4dctventilationcalculationmethodusinginvivoxenonctventilationdataandcomparisontoothermethods
AT reinhardtjosephm evaluationofthedv4dctventilationcalculationmethodusinginvivoxenonctventilationdataandcomparisontoothermethods
AT christensengarye evaluationofthedv4dctventilationcalculationmethodusinginvivoxenonctventilationdataandcomparisontoothermethods
AT dingkai evaluationofthedv4dctventilationcalculationmethodusinginvivoxenonctventilationdataandcomparisontoothermethods
AT feygelmanvladimir evaluationofthedv4dctventilationcalculationmethodusinginvivoxenonctventilationdataandcomparisontoothermethods
AT moroseduardog evaluationofthedv4dctventilationcalculationmethodusinginvivoxenonctventilationdataandcomparisontoothermethods