Pulmonary Emphysema: Radiation Dose and Section Thickness at Multidetector CT Quantification—Comparison with Macroscopic and Microscopic Morphometry

Purpose: To prospectively investigate the effects of radiation dose and section thickness on quantitative multidetector computed tomographic (CT) indexes of pulmonary emphysema.

Materials and Methods: The institutional review board approved this protocol. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Seventy patients (49 men, 21 women; age range, 38–79 years) referred for surgical resection of a lung tumor underwent multidetector CT with 4 × 1-mm collimation, 120 kVp, and 20 and 120 effective mAs. At each radiation dose, 1.25-, 5.0-, and 10.0-mm-thick sections were reconstructed at 10-mm intervals. From scans of the lobe or whole lung to be resected, relative areas (RAs) of lung with attenuation coefficients lower than nine thresholds and eight percentiles of the distribution of attenuation coefficients were compared with the histopathologic extent of emphysema, which was measured microscopically—by using the corrected mean interwall distance (MIWD) and the corrected mean perimeter (MP)—and macroscopically. Correlations between the data obtained by using attenuation thresholds and percentiles and the parameters macroscopic extent of emphysema, MIWD, and MP were investigated by using Spearman coefficients.

Results: The 1st percentile (r range, −0.394 to −0.675; P < .001) and attenuation coefficients of −980, −970, and −960 HU (r range, 0.478–0.664; P < .001) yielded the strongest correlations with macroscopic extent, MIWD, and MP, regardless of radiation dose or section thickness. The effects of radiation dose and section thickness on RAs of lung with attenuation coefficients lower than −960 HU (P = .007 and P < .001, respectively) and lower than −970 HU (P = .001 and P < .001, respectively) were significant. The effect of section thickness on the 1st percentile was significant (P < .001), whereas the effect of dose was not (P = .910).

Conclusion: At CT quantification of pulmonary emphysema, the tube current–time product can be reduced to 20 mAs, but both tube current–time product and section thickness should be kept constant in follow-up examinations.

© RSNA, 2007


  • 1 Rennard S, Decramer M, Calverley PM, et al. Impact of COPD in North America and Europe in 2000: subjects' perspective of Confronting COPD International Survey. Eur Respir J 2002; 20: 799–805. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bae KT, Slone RM, Gierada DS, Yusen RD, Cooper JD. Patients with emphysema: quantitative CT analysis before and after lung volume reduction surgery. Radiology 1997;203:705–714. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gierada DS, Yusen RD, Pilgram TK, et al. Repeatability of quantitative CT indexes of emphysema in patients evaluated for lung volume reduction surgery. Radiology 2001;220:448–454. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Newell JD, Hogg JC, Snider GL. Report of a workshop: quantitative computed tomography scanning in longitudinal studies of emphysema. Eur Respir J 2004;23:769–775. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dirksen A, Dijkman JH, Madsen F, et al. A randomized clinical trial of alpha(1)-antitrypsin augmented therapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;160(5 pt 1):1468–1472. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Studler U, Gluecker T, Bongartz G, Roth J, Steinbrich W. Image quality from high-resolution CT of the lung: comparison of axial scans and of sections reconstructed from volumetric data acquired using MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:602–607. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Zhu X, Yu J, Huang Z. Low-dose chest CT: optimizing radiation protection for patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:809–816. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jung KJ, Lee KS, Kim SY, Kim TS, Pyeun YS, Lee JY. Low-dose, volumetric helical CT: image quality, radiation dose, and usefulness for evaluation of bronchiectasis. Invest Radiol 2000;35:557–563. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Zwirewich CV, Mayo JR, Muller NL. Low-dose high-resolution CT of lung parenchyma. Radiology 1991;180:413–417. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lee KS, Primack SL, Staples CA, Mayo JR, Aldrich JE, Muller NL. Chronic infiltrative lung disease: comparison of diagnostic accuracies of radiography and low- and conventional-dose thin-section CT. Radiology 1994;191:669–673. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Remy-Jardin M, Sobaszek A, Duhamel A, Mastora I, Zanetti C, Remy J. Asbestos-related pleuropulmonary diseases: evaluation with low-dose four–detector row spiral CT. Radiology 2004;233:182–190. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tack D, De Maertelaer V, Petit W, et al. Multi–detector row CT pulmonary angiography: comparison of standard-dose and simulated low-dose techniques. Radiology 2005;236:318–325. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Madani A, Zanen J, de Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA. Pulmonary emphysema: objective quantification at multi–detector row CT—comparison with macroscopic and microscopic morphometry. Radiology 2006;238:1036–1043. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 14 World Health Organization. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic—report of a WHO consultation of obesity. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1997. Google Scholar
  • 15 Mahesh M, Scatarige JC, Cooper J, Fishman EK. Dose and pitch relationship for a particular multislice CT scanner. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:1273–1275. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Silverman PM, Kalender WA, Hazle JD. Common terminology for single and multislice helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:1135–1136. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 International Electrotechnical Commission. Amendment 1 to IEC 60601-2-44, edition 2: medical electrical equipment, part 2-44—particular requirements for the safety of x-ray equipment for computed tomography, final draft international standard. Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission, 2002; 1–7. Google Scholar
  • 18 Gevenois PA, Koob MC, Jacobovitz D, De Vuyst P, Yernault JC, Struyven J. Whole lung sections for CT-pathologic correlations: modified Gough-Wentworth technique. Invest Radiol 1993;28:242–246. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gevenois PA, Zanen J, de Maertelaer V, De Vuyst P, Dumortier P, Yernault JC. Macroscopic assessment of pulmonary emphysema by image analysis. J Clin Pathol 1995;48:318–322. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gould GA, MacNee W, McLean A, et al. CT measurements of lung density in life can quantitate distal airspace enlargement: an essential defining feature of human emphysema. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988;137:380–392. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Thurlbeck WM. Measurement of pulmonary emphysema. Am Rev Respir Dis 1967;95:752–754. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Stolk J, Dirksen A, van der Lugt AA, et al. Repeatability of lung density measurements with low-dose computed tomography in subjects with alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency-associated emphysema. Invest Radiol 2001;36:648–651. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Müller NL, Staples CA, Miller RR, Abboud RT. “Density mask”: an objective method to quantitate emphysema using computed tomography. Chest 1988;94:782–787. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Mishima M, Hirai T, Itoh H, et al. Complexity of terminal airspace geometry assessed by lung computed tomography in normal subjects and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999;96:8829–8834. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Nakano Y, Muro S, Sakai H, et al. Computed tomographic measurements of airway dimensions and emphysema in smokers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;162:1102–1108. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Orlandi I, Moroni C, Camiciottoli G, et al. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: thin-section CT measurement of airway wall thickness and lung attenuation. Radiology 2005;234:604–610. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Gevenois PA, De Vuyst P, De Maertelaer V, et al. Comparison of computed density and microscopic morphometry in pulmonary emphysema. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996;154:187–192. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Prasad SR, Wittram C, Shepard JA, McLoud T, Rhea J. Standard-dose and 50%-reduced-dose chest CT: comparing the effect on image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:461–465. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ravenel JG, Scalzetti EM, Huda W, Garrisi W. Radiation exposure and image quality in chest CT examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:279–284. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Park KJ, Bergin CJ, Clausen JL. Quantification of emphysema with three-dimensional CT densitometry: comparison with two-dimensional analysis, visual emphysema scores, and pulmonary function test results. Radiology 1999;211:541–547. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Hald A. A history of probability and statistics and their applications before 1750. New York, NY: Wiley, 1989. Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2007