4.2 Article

Nonspecific interstitial pneumonia versus usual interstitial pneumonia - Differences in the density histogram of high-resolution CT

Journal

JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY
Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 544-548

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.rct.0000164255.43859.96

Keywords

high-resolution computed tomography; image quality computed tomography; lung density; lung fibrosis; nonspecific interstitial pneumonia; usual interstitial pneumonia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the capability of the density histogram of high-resolution CT (HRCT) in differentiating nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) from usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) without definite honeycombing. Methods: Twenty-eight NSIP and 32 UIP patients without definite honeycombing on CT were included in this study. We evaluated a CT image at the level of 1 cm above the diaphragm. The pixels of the lung parenchyma were classified into 4 ranges. The fractions of each range of corresponding density were calculated. The skewness (the degree of asymmetry of a distribution) and kurtosis (how sharply peaked a histogram is) were obtained from the density histogram. The mean value and the mode value of the lung attenuation were also measured. Results: The fraction of the range of ground-glass opacity and reticular opacity was greater in NSIP patients (32%, 12%) than in UIP patients (23%, 8%) (P < 0.001). UIP had a larger fraction of the range of normal lung. The density histogram was less skewed (P = 0.01) and had a wider peak (P = 0.02) in NSIP (skewness = 1.2879 +/- 0.5672, kurtosis = 1.2115 +/- 1.9470) than in UIP (skewness = 1.6426 +/- 0.4664, kurtosis = 2.3880 +/- 1.8183). Conclusion: The density histogram reflected the differences in the CT features between NSIP and UIP Therefore, a density histogram may be helpful for differentiating NSIP from UTP without definite honeycombing.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available