Ultra high-resolution computed tomography with 1024-matrix: Comparison with 512-matrix for the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. Issue 128 (July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tsubamoto, Mitsuko; Hata, Akinori; Yanagawa, Masahiro; Honda, Osamu; Miyata, Tomo; Yoshida, Yuriko; Nakayama, Akiko; Kikuchi, Noriko; Uranishi, Ayumi; Tsukagoshi, Shinsuke; Watanabe, Yoshiyuki; Tomiyama, Noriyuki
• Is Part Of: European journal of radiology. Issue 128(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-07
• Subjects: U-HRCT ultra-high-resolution computed tomography -- SHR super-high-resolution -- HRCT high-resolution computed tomography -- FOV field of view -- AIDR Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction -- LCD liquid crystal display -- DFOV display field of view -- SD standard deviation -- AUC area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; HRCT -- Matrix size -- Pulmonary nodule -- Image reconstruction; Medical radiology -- Periodicals; Radiology -- Periodicals; Radiologie médicale -- Périodiques; Medical radiology; Periodicals; 616.075705
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109033
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0720-048X

Abstract

Highlights: 2-1024 protocol image had more conspicuous findings than 0.5-512 protocol. U-HRCT improves image quality without increase of a data amount despite image noise. 2-1024 protocol images were noisier than those of 0.5-512 protocol. Abstract: Purpose: To determine whether a 1024-matrix provides superior image quality for the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. Materials and methods: Prospective evaluation conducted between December 2017 and April 2018, during which CT images showing lung nodules of more than 6 mm and less than 30 mmm were reconstructed with 2 different protocols: 0.5-mm thickness, 512 × 512 matrix, 34.5-cm field of view (FOV) (0.5-512 protocol); and 2-mm thickness, 1024 × 1024 matrix, 34.5-cm FOV (2-1024 protocol). Lung nodule characteristics such as margin, lobulation, pleural indentation, spiculation as well as peripheral vessels and bronchioles visibility and overall image quality were evaluated by three chest radiologists, using a 5-point scale. Image noise was evaluated by measuring the standard deviation in the region of interest for each image. Results: A total of 89 nodules were evaluated. The 2-1024 protocol performed significantly better for the subjective evaluation of pulmonary nodules (p = 0.006 ∼ p < 0.0001). However, image noise was significantly higher both subjectively and objectively (p = 0.036, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The use of a 2-1024 protocol does not increase the amount of images and allows better assessment of pulmonary nodules, despite noise increase.