Visual vs. computer-based computed tomography analysis for the identification of functional patterns in interstitial lung diseases.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Computer algorithms possess an intrinsic speed, objectivity, reproducibility and scalability unmatched by visual quantitation methods performed by trained readers. The question of how well quantitative CT (QCT) analysis methods compare with visual CT analysis to predict functional status in fibrosing lung diseases (FLDs) is of increasing relevance to understand the future role QCT may have in prognostication of FLD. RECENT FINDINGS: The latest computer algorithms demonstrate improved performance over visual CT analysis in predicting baseline disease severity as measured by correlations with functional indices of lung damage. QCT analysis may, therefore, have a role in aiding clinical decision-making as well as in the enrichment of drug trial populations. Quantitative analysis on longitudinal CTs has also shown better correlations with changes in functional indices whenever compared with visual scores of change suggesting the potential of QCT analysis as an imaging biomarker of disease progression in FLD. Importantly, computer algorithms are now able to identify prognostic imaging biomarkers that cannot be quantified visually (e.g. vessel-related structures). SUMMARY: QCT holds great promise for the evaluation of damage in FLD. Challenges for QCT include accommodating measurement noise from variation in CT acquisition techniques and developing patient-friendly visualizations of quantitative outputs.

Measuring liver fat fraction with complex-based chemical shift MRI: the effect of simplified sampling protocols on accuracy.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of liver percentage fat fraction (%FF) using proton density fat fraction sequences is becoming increasingly accessible. Previous studies have tended to use multiple small ROIs that focus on Couinaud segments. In an effort to simplify day-to-day analysis, this study assesses the impact of using larger, elliptical ROIs focused on a single hepatic lobe. Additionally, we assess the impact of sampling fewer transhepatic slices when measuring %FF. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively obtained images from 34 volunteers using an IDEAL IQ sequence. Two observers independently measured %FF using three different protocols: freehand whole-liver ROI (fh-ROI), elliptical-ROI on the right lobe (rt-ROI) and elliptical-ROI on the left lobe (lt-ROI). RESULTS: Inter-observer reliability for all measurements techniques was 'excellent' (Spearman's rank correlation coefficients 0.81-0.98). There was a significant difference (Paired Wilcoxon Test: p < 0.001) between the median %FF obtained using fh-ROI when compared to the rt-ROI method, the maximum mean difference between the two techniques was 2.79% (95% CI). For all sampling methods a Kruskall-Wallis analysis demonstrated no significant difference in mean %FF when the number of slices sampled was reduced from 11 to 1. The mean coefficient of variance increased when more slices were sampled (3 slices = 0.1, 11 slices = 0.17, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Simplified ROIs focused on one hepatic lobe provide %FF measurements that are unlikely to be sufficiently accurate for use in clinical practice. Freehand whole-liver ROIs should be used in preference. A single freehand ROI measurement taken at the level of the hepatic hilum yields a %FF that is representative of the mean whole liver % FF. Multiple slices are needed to measure heterogeneity.