4.3 Review

Development of Quantitative Computed Tomography Lung Protocols

Journal

JOURNAL OF THORACIC IMAGING
Volume 28, Issue 5, Pages 266-271

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/RTI.0b013e31829f6796

Keywords

computed tomography; quantitative; quantitative computed tomography protocol; lung; pulmonary; chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder; asthma

Funding

  1. VIDA Diagnostics Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this review article is to review the process of developing optimal computed tomography (CT) protocols for quantitative lung CT (QCT). In this review, we discuss the following important topics: QCT-derived metrics of lung disease; QCT scanning protocols; quality control; and QCT image processing software. We will briefly discuss several QCT-derived metrics of lung disease that have been developed for the assessment of emphysema, small airway disease, and large airway disease. The CT scanning protocol is one of the most important elements in a successful QCT. We will provide a detailed description of the current move toward optimizing the QCT protocol for the assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder and asthma. Quality control of CT images is also a very important part of the QCT process. We will discuss why it is necessary to use CT scanner test objects (phantoms) to provide frequent periodic checks on the CT scanner calibration to ensure precise and accurate CT numbers. We will discuss the use of QCT image processing software to segment the lung and extract the desired QCT metrics of lung disease. We will discuss the practical issues of using this software. The data obtained from the image processing software are then combined with those from other clinical examinations, health status questionnaires, pulmonary physiology, and genomics to increase our understanding of obstructive lung disease and improve our ability to design new therapies for these diseases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available