Emphysema quantification using ultralow-dose CT with iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection

Mizuho Nishio, Hisanobu Koyama, Yoshiharu Ohno, Noriyuki Negi, Shinichiro Seki, Takeshi Yoshikawa, Kazuro Sugimura

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

31 Citations (Scopus)


OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate agreement between standarddose CT (SDCT) and ultralow-dose CT (ULDCT) findings with respect to emphysema quantification. ULDCT images were reconstructed with and without iterative reconstruction (IR). Adaptive iterative dose reduction with 3D processing was used for IR. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Fifty patients who underwent SDCT and ULDCT were included. The tube current for SDCT was 250 mA, and that for ULDCT was 10 mA. SDCT, ULDCT without IR, and ULDCT with IR were used for emphysema quantification. The low-attenuation volume percentage (LAV%) in the lungs at four thresholds (-970, -950, -930, and -910 HU), mean lung attenuation, and total lung volume were computed. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) were used to assess the agreement of emphysema quantification between SDCT and ULDCT. RESULTS. The LAV% CCC values were 0.310-0.789 between SDCT and ULDCT without IR and 0.934-0.966 between SDCT and ULDCT with IR. The agreement of LAV% improved when IR was used for ULDCT. The mean lung attenuation CCC value between SDCT and ULDCT without IR was substantial (0.957), whereas that between SDCT and ULDCT with IR was poor (0.890). The total lung volume CCC values were substantial (0.982 with IR, 0.983 without IR). CONCLUSION. ULDCT with and without IR can substitute for SDCT in emphysema quantification.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1184-1192
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - 06-2016
Externally publishedYes

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging


Dive into the research topics of 'Emphysema quantification using ultralow-dose CT with iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this