Blog
About

20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Comparison of computed density and macroscopic morphometry in pulmonary emphysema.

      American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine

      Tomography, X-Ray Computed, methods, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Lung, pathology, Female, radiography, Lung Neoplasms, surgery, Lung Transplantation, Male, Middle Aged, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Pneumonectomy, Prospective Studies, Pulmonary Emphysema, Radiographic Image Enhancement, Adult, Aged

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          High-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans were obtained at 1 cm intervals in 63 subjects referred for surgical resection of a cancer or for transplantation to find out whether the relative area of lung occupied by attenuation values lower than a threshold would be a measurement of macroscopic emphysema. Using a semiautomatic procedure, the relative areas occupied by attenuation values lower than eight thresholds ranging from -900 to -970 HU were calculated on the set of scans obtained through the lobe or the lung to be resected. The extent of emphysema was quantified by a computer-assisted method on horizontal paper-mounted lung sections obtained every 1 to 2 cm. The only level for which no statistically significant difference was found between the HRCT and the morphometric data was -950 HU. To determine the number of scans sufficient for an accurate quantification, we recalculated the relative area occupied by attenuation values lower than -950 HU on progressively fewer numbers of scans and investigated the departure from the results obtained with 1 cm intervals. Because of wide variations in this departure from patient to patient, a standard cannot be recommended as the optimal distance between scans.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          10.1164/ajrccm.152.2.7633722
          7633722

          Comments

          Comment on this article