Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
Quantitative Chest CT Analysis: Three Different Approaches to Quantify the Burden of Viral Interstitial Pneumonia Using COVID-19 as a Paradigm.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fanni Salvatore Claudio, Colligiani Leonardo, Volpi Federica, Novaria Lisa, Tonerini Michele, Airoldi Chiara, Plataroti Dario, Bartholmai Brian J, De Liperi Annalisa, Neri Emanuele, Romei Chiara
Аннотация
Objectives: To investigate the relationship between COVID-19 pneumonia outcomes and three chest CT analysis approaches. Methods: Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who underwent chest CT were included and divided into survivors/non-survivors and intubated/not-intubated. Chest CTs were analyzed through a (1) Total Severity Score visually quantified by an emergency (TSS1) and a thoracic radiologist (TSS2); (2) density mask technique quantifying normal parenchyma (DM_Norm 1) and ground glass opacities (DM_GGO1) repeated after the manual delineation of consolidations (DM_Norm2, DM_GGO2, DM_Consolidation); (3) texture analysis quantifying normal parenchyma (TA_Norm) and interstitial lung disease (TA_ILD). Association with outcomes was assessed through Chi-square and the Mann-Whitney test. The TSS inter-reader variability was assessed through intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. The relationship between quantitative variables and outcomes was investigated through multivariate logistic regression analysis. Variables correlation was investigated using Spearman analysis. Results: Overall, 192 patients (mean age, 66.8 ± 15.4 years) were included. TSS was significantly higher in intubated patients but only TSS1 in survivors. TSS presented an ICC of 0.83 (0.76; 0.88) and a bias (LOA) of 1.55 (-4.69, 7.78). DM_Consolidation showed the greatest median difference between survivors/not survivors (p = 0.002). The strongest independent predictor for mortality was DM_Consolidation (AUC 0.688), while the strongest independent predictor for the intensity of care was TSS2 (0.7498). DM_Norm 2 was the singular feature independently associated with both the outcomes. DM_GGO1 strongly correlated with TA_ILD (ρ = 0.977). Conclusions: The DM technique and TA achieved consistent measurements and a better correlation with patient outcomes.