4.5 Article

Exploring Variability in CT Characterization of Tumors: A Preliminary Phantom Study

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL ONCOLOGY
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 88-93

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1593/tlo.13865

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute (NCI) [U01 CA140207, R01 CA149490]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To explore the effects of computed tomography (CT) slice thickness and reconstruction algorithm on quantification of image features to characterize tumors using a chest phantom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two phantom lesions of known sizes (10 and 20 mm), shapes (spherical, elliptical, lobulated, and spiculated), and densities [-630, -10, and + 100 Hounsfield Unit (HU)] were inserted into an anthropomorphic thorax phantom and scanned three times with relocations. The raw data were reconstructed using six imaging settings, i.e., a combination of three slice thicknesses of 1.25, 2.5, and 5 mm and two reconstruction kernels of lung and standard. Lesions were segmented and 14 image features representing lesion size, shape, and texture were calculated. Differences in the measured image features due to slice thickness and reconstruction algorithm were compared using linear regression method by adjusting three confounding variables (size, density, and shape). RESULTS: All 14 features were significantly different between 1.25 and 5 mm slice images. The 1.25 and 2.5 mm slice thicknesses were better than 5 mm for volume, density mean, density SD gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) energy and homogeneity. As for the reconstruction algorithm, there was no significant difference in uni-dimension, volume, shape index 9, and compactness. Lung reconstruction was better for density mean, whereas standard reconstruction was better for density SD. CONCLUSIONS: CT slice thickness and reconstruction algorithm can significantly affect the quantification of image features. Thinner (1.25 and 2.5 mm) and thicker (5 mm) slice images should not be used interchangeably. Sharper and smoother reconstructions significantly affect the density-based features.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据