ABSTRACT
Importance: The efficacy of lung cancer screening can be significantly impacted by the imaging modality used. This Virtual Lung Screening Trial (VLST) addresses the critical need for precision in lung cancer diagnostics and the potential for reducing unnecessary radiation exposure in clinical settings. Objectives: To establish a virtual imaging trial (VIT) platform that accurately simulates real-world lung screening trials (LSTs) to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CT and CXR modalities. Design Setting and Participants: Utilizing computational models and machine learning algorithms, we created a diverse virtual patient population. The cohort, designed to mirror real-world demographics, was assessed using virtual imaging techniques that reflect historical imaging technologies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the difference in the Area Under the Curve (AUC) for CT and CXR modalities across lesion types and sizes. Results: The study analyzed 298 CT and 313 CXR simulated images from 313 virtual patients, with a lesion-level AUC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.84) for CT and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.53-0.56) for CXR. At the patient level, CT demonstrated an AUC of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80-0.89), compared to 0.53 (95% CI: 0.47-0.60) for CXR. Subgroup analyses indicated CT's superior performance in detecting homogeneous lesions (AUC of 0.97 for lesion-level) and heterogeneous lesions (AUC of 0.71 for lesion-level) as well as in identifying larger nodules (AUC of 0.98 for nodules > 8 mm). Conclusion and Relevance: The VIT platform validated the superior diagnostic accuracy of CT over CXR, especially for smaller nodules, underscoring its potential to replicate real clinical imaging trials. These findings advocate for the integration of virtual trials in the evaluation and improvement of imaging-based diagnostic tools.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT) has recently emerged into clinical use; however, its optimum imaging protocols and added benefits remains unknown in terms of providing more accurate lung density quantification compared to energy-integrating computed tomography (EICT) scanners. PURPOSE: To systematically assess the performance of a clinical PCCT scanner for lung density quantifications and compare it against EICT. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved a retrospective analysis of subjects scanned (August-December 2021) using a clinical PCCT system. The influence of altering reconstruction parameters was studied (reconstruction kernel, pixel size, slice thickness). A virtual CT dataset of anthropomorphic virtual subjects was acquired to demonstrate the correspondence of findings to clinical dataset, and to perform systematic imaging experiments, not possible using human subjects. The virtual subjects were imaged using a validated, scanner-specific CT simulator of a PCCT and two EICT (defined as EICT A and B) scanners. The images were evaluated using mean absolute error (MAE) of lung and emphysema density against their corresponding ground truth. RESULTS: Clinical and virtual PCCT datasets showed similar trends, with sharper kernels and smaller voxel sizes increasing percentage of low-attenuation areas below -950 HU (LAA-950) by up to 15.7 ± 6.9% and 11.8 ± 5.5%, respectively. Under the conditions studied, higher doses, thinner slices, smaller pixel sizes, iterative reconstructions, and quantitative kernels with medium sharpness resulted in lower lung MAE values. While using these settings for PCCT, changes in the dose level (13 to 1.3 mGy), slice thickness (0.4 to 1.5 mm), pixel size (0.49 to 0.98 mm), reconstruction technique (70 keV-VMI to wFBP), and kernel (Qr48 to Qr60) increased lung MAE by 15.3 ± 2.0, 1.4 ± 0.6, 2.2 ± 0.3, 4.2 ± 0.8, and 9.1 ± 1.6 HU, respectively. At the optimum settings identified per scanner, PCCT images exhibited lower lung and emphysema MAE than those of EICT scanners (by 2.6 ± 1.0 and 9.6 ± 3.4 HU, compared to EICT A, and by 4.8 ± 0.8 and 7.4 ± 2.3 HU, compared to EICT B). The accuracy of lung density measurements was correlated with subjects' mean lung density (p < 0.05), measured by PCCT at optimum setting under the conditions studied. CONCLUSION: Photon-counting CT demonstrated superior performance in density quantifications, with its influences of imaging parameters in line with energy-integrating CT scanners. The technology offers improvement in lung quantifications, thus demonstrating potential toward more objective assessment of respiratory conditions.
