目的:超高分辨率CT(UHR-CT),可以应用正常分辨率(NR),高分辨率(HR),和超高分辨率(SHR)模式,已与多探测器CT(MDCT)结合使用。此外,深度学习重建(DLR)方法,以及滤波反投影(FBP),混合型迭代重建(IR),和基于模型的IR方法,已在临床上使用。这项研究的目的是直接比较使用不同扫描模式的UHR-CT的肺部CT数量和气道尺寸评估能力,以及在QIBA推荐的肺密度和气道模型设计中研究的具有不同重建方法的MDCT。
方法:肺部CT编号,内径(ID),内部区域(IA),测量壁厚(WT),和测量的CT数之间的平均差异,ID,IA,WT,通过Tukey的HSD检验,将所有UHR-CT数据与用FBP重建为1.0mm切片厚度的MDCT数据进行比较。
结果:对于每种重建方法,使用SHR和HR模式获得的0.5mm和1mm切片厚度CT的肺部CT数量和所有气道参数的平均差异与使用UHR-CT和MDCT的NR模式获得的差异显着(p<0.05)。此外,使用SHR获得的所有UHR-CT的平均差异,HR,或NR模式与用FBP重建的1.0mm切片厚度的MDCT显着不同(p<0.05)。
结论:发现用于UHR-CT的扫描模式和重建方法与用于MDCT的重建方法一样,显著影响肺部CT数量和气道尺寸评估。
结论:•用于UHR-CT的扫描和重建方法显示,与QIBA体模研究中的MDCT相比,CT数量明显更高,气道尺寸评估更小(p<0.05)。•0.25mm的肺部CT数量的平均差异,0.5-mm,用SHR和HR模式获得的1.0mm切片厚度CT图像明显大于用MDCT获得的1.0mm切片厚度并用FBP重建的CT图像(p<0.05)。•内径(ID)的平均差异,内部区域(IA),在0.5和1.0mm切片厚度CT图像上使用SHR和HR模式测量的壁厚(WT)显着小于在UHR-CT和MDCT上使用NR模式获得的壁厚(p<0.05)。
OBJECTIVE: Ultra-high-resolution CT (UHR-CT), which can be applied normal resolution (NR), high-resolution (HR), and super-high-resolution (SHR) modes, has become available as in conjunction with multi-detector CT (MDCT). Moreover, deep learning reconstruction (DLR) method, as well as filtered back projection (FBP), hybrid-type iterative reconstruction (IR), and model-based IR methods, has been clinically used. The purpose of this
study was to directly compare lung CT number and airway dimension evaluation capabilities of UHR-CT using different scan modes with those of MDCT with different reconstruction methods as investigated in a lung density and airway phantom design recommended by QIBA.
METHODS: Lung CT number, inner diameter (ID), inner area (IA), and wall thickness (WT) were measured, and mean differences between measured CT number, ID, IA, WT, and standard reference were compared by means of Tukey\'s HSD test between all UHR-CT data and MDCT reconstructed with FBP as 1.0-mm section thickness.
RESULTS: For each reconstruction method, mean differences in lung CT numbers and all airway parameters on 0.5-mm and 1-mm section thickness CTs obtained with SHR and HR modes showed significant differences with those obtained with the NR mode on UHR-CT and MDCT (p < 0.05). Moreover, the mean differences on all UHR-CTs obtained with SHR, HR, or NR modes were significantly different from those of 1.0-mm section thickness MDCTs reconstructed with FBP (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Scan modes and reconstruction methods used for UHR-CT were found to significantly affect lung CT number and airway dimension evaluations as did reconstruction methods used for MDCT.
CONCLUSIONS: • Scan and reconstruction methods used for UHR-CT showed significantly higher CT numbers and smaller airway dimension evaluations as did those for MDCT in a QIBA phantom
study (p < 0.05). • Mean differences in lung CT number for 0.25-mm, 0.5-mm, and 1.0-mm section thickness CT images obtained with SHR and HR modes were significantly larger than those for CT images at 1.0-mm section thickness obtained with MDCT and reconstructed with FBP (p < 0.05). • Mean differences in inner diameter (ID), inner area (IA), and wall thickness (WT) measured with SHR and HR modes on 0.5- and 1.0-mm section thickness CT images were significantly smaller than those obtained with NR mode on UHR-CT and MDCT (p < 0.05).