Monitoring of Smoking-induced Emphysema with CT in a Lung Cancer Screening Setting: Detection of Real Increase in Extent of Emphysema

Published Online:Sep 1 2007https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2443061330

Abstract

Purpose:To retrospectively establish the minimum increase in emphysema score (ES) required for detection of real increased extent of emphysema with 95% confidence by using multi–detector row computed tomography (CT) in a lung cancer screening setting.

Materials and Methods: The study was a substudy of the NELSON project that was approved by the Dutch Ministry of Health and the ethics committee of each participating hospital, with patient informed consent. For this substudy, original approval and informed consent allowed use of data for future research. Among 1684 men screened with low-dose multi–detector row CT (30 mAs, 16 detector rows, 0.75-mm section thickness) between April 2004 and March 2005, only participants who underwent repeat multi–detector row CT with the same scanner after 3 months because of an indeterminate pulmonary nodule were included. Extent of emphysema was considered to remain stable in this short period. Extent of low-attenuation areas representing emphysema was computed for repeat and baseline scans as percentage of lung volume below three attenuation threshold values (−910 HU, −930 HU, −950 HU). Limits of agreement were determined with Bland-Altman approach; upper limits were used to deduce the minimum increase in ES required for detecting increased extent of emphysema with 95% probability. Factors influencing the limits of agreement were determined.

Results: In total, 157 men (mean age, 60 years) were included in the study. Limits of agreement for differences in total lung volume between repeat and baseline scans were −13.4% to +12.6% at −910 HU, −4.7% to +4.2% at −930 HU, and −1.3% to +1.1% at −950 HU. Differences in ES showed weak to moderate correlation with variation in level of inspiration (r = 0.20–0.49, P < .05). Scanner calibration could be excluded as a factor contributing to variation in ES.

Conclusion: Increase in ES required to detect increased extent of smoking-related emphysema with 95% probability varies between 1.1% of total lung volume at −950 HU and 12.6% at −910 HU for low-dose multi–detector row CT.

Clinical trial registration no. ISRCTN63545820; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctsearch.asp?Term=nelson

References

1 Arakawa A, Yamashita Y, Nakayama Y, et al. Assessment of lung volumes in pulmonary emphysema using multidetector helical CT: comparison with pulmonary function tests. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2001; 25(5): 399–404. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
2 Kinsella M, Muller NL, Abboud RT, Morrison NJ, DyBuncio A. Quantitation of emphysema by computed tomography using a “density mask” program and correlation with pulmonary function tests. Chest 1990;97(2):315–321. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
3 Madani A, Keyzer C, Gevenois PA. Quantitative computed tomography assessment of lung structure and function in pulmonary emphysema. Eur Respir J 2001;18(4):720–730. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
4 Müller NL, Staples CA, Miller RR, Abboud RT. “Density mask”: an objective method to quantitate emphysema using computed tomography. Chest 1988;94(4):782–787. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
5 Church TR. Chest radiography as the comparison for spiral CT in the National Lung Screening Trial. Acad Radiol 2003;10(6):713–715. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
6 Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Early Lung Cancer Action Project: overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet 1999;354(9173):99–105. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
7 Sone S, Takashima S, Li F, et al. Mass screening for lung cancer with mobile spiral computed tomography scanner. Lancet 1998;351(9111):1242–1245. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
8 van Klaveren RJ, Habbema JD, de Koning HJ, Oudkerk M, Damhuis RA, Hoogsteden HC. Screening for lung cancer in the Netherlands: the role of spiral CT scan [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2001;145(11):521–526. Medline, Google Scholar
9 Omori H, Nakashima R, Otsuka N, et al. Emphysema detected by lung cancer screening with low-dose spiral CT: prevalence, and correlation with smoking habits and pulmonary function in Japanese male subjects. Respirology 2006;11(2):205–210. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
10 Shaker SB, Dirksen A, Laursen LC, Skovgaard LT, Holstein-Rathlou NH. Volume adjustment of lung density by computed tomography scans in patients with emphysema. Acta Radiol 2004;45(4):417–423. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
11 Stoel BC, Stolk J. Optimization and standardization of lung densitometry in the assessment of pulmonary emphysema. Invest Radiol 2004;39(11):681–688. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
12 Van Iersel CA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G, et al. Risk-based selection from the general population in a screening trial: selection criteria, recruitment and power for the Dutch-Belgian randomised lung cancer multi-slice CT screening trial (NELSON). Int J Cancer 2007;120(4):868–874. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13 Hu S, Hoffman EA, Reinhardt JM. Automatic lung segmentation for accurate quantitation of volumetric x-ray CT images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2001;20(6):490–498. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
14 Hilts M, Duzenli C. Image filtering for improved dose resolution in CT polymer gel dosimetry. Med Phys 2004;31(1):39–49. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
15 Dirksen A, Friis M, Olesen KP, Skovgaard LT, Sorensen K. Progress of emphysema in severe alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency as assessed by annual CT. Acta Radiol 1997;38(5):826–832. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
16 Gevenois PA, de Maertelaer V, De Vuyst P, Zanen J, Yernault JC. Comparison of computed density and macroscopic morphometry in pulmonary emphysema. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995;152(2):653–657. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
17 Parr DG, Stoel BC, Stolk J, Nightingale PG, Stockley RA. Influence of calibration on densitometric studies of emphysema progression using computed tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004;170(8):883–890. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
18 Kalender WA, Rienmuller R, Seissler W, Behr J, Welke M, Fichte H. Measurement of pulmonary parenchymal attenuation: use of spirometric gating with quantitative CT. Radiology 1990;175(1):265–268. Link, Google Scholar
19 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1(8476):307–310. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
20 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(2):448–454. Link, Google Scholar
21 Shaker SB, Dirksen A, Laursen LC, et al. Short-term reproducibility of computed tomography-based lung density measurements in alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency and smokers with emphysema. Acta Radiol 2004;45(4):424–430. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
22 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(1):187–192. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
23 Kemerink GJ, Kruize HH, Lamers RJ, van Engelshoven JM. CT lung densitometry: dependence of CT number histograms on sample volume and consequences for scan protocol comparability. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997;21(6):948–954. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
24 Park KJ, Bergin CJ, Clausen JL. Quantitation of emphysema with three-dimensional CT densitometry: comparison with two-dimensional analysis, visual emphysema scores, and pulmonary function test results. Radiology 1999;211(2):541–547. Link, Google Scholar
25 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(3):1036–1043. Link, Google Scholar
26 Mishima M, Itoh H, Sakai H, et al. Optimized scanning conditions of high resolution CT in the follow-up of pulmonary emphysema. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999;23(3):380–384. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
27 Gotway MB, Lee ES, Reddy GP, Golden JA, Webb WR. Low-dose, dynamic, expiratory thin-section CT of the lungs using a spiral CT scanner. J Thorac Imaging 2000;15(3):168–172. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
28 Lamers RJ, Thelissen GR, Kessels AG, Wouters EF, van Engelshoven JM. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: evaluation with spirometrically controlled CT lung densitometry. Radiology 1994;193(1):109–113. Link, Google Scholar
29 Itoh S, Ikeda M, Arahata S, et al. Lung cancer screening: minimum tube current required for helical CT. Radiology 2000;215(1):175–183. Link, Google Scholar
30 Revel MP, Lefort C, Bissery A, et al. Pulmonary nodules: preliminary experience with three-dimensional evaluation. Radiology 2004;231(2):459–466. Link, Google Scholar
31 Schilham AM, van Ginneken B, Gietema H, Prokop M. Local noise weighted filtering for emphysema scoring of low-dose CT images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2006;25(4):451–463. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
32 Parr DG, Stoel BC, Stolk J, Stockley RA. Validation of computed tomographic lung densitometry for monitoring emphysema in alpha1-antitrypsin deficiency. Thorax 2006;61(6):485–490. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2007

Vol. 244, No. 3

Metrics

Altmetric Score

PDF download