Head-to-head Comparison of Qualitative Radiologist Assessment With Automated Quantitative Computed Tomography Analysis for Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome After Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation. Journal of thoracic imaging Sharifi, H., Guenther, Z. D., Leung, A. N., Johnston, L., Lai, Y. K., Hsu, J. L., Guo, H. H. 2021


PURPOSE: Computed tomography (CT) findings of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) can be nonspecific and variable. This study aims to measure the incremental value of automated quantitative lung CT analysis to clinical CT interpretation. A head-to-head comparison of quantitative CT lung density analysis by parametric response mapping (PRM) with qualitative radiologist performance in BOS diagnosis was performed.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inspiratory and end-expiratory CTs of 65 patients referred to a post-bone marrow transplant lung graft-versus-host-disease clinic were reviewed by 3 thoracic radiologists for the presence of mosaic attenuation, centrilobular opacities, airways dilation, and bronchial wall thickening. Radiologists' majority consensus diagnosis of BOS was compared with automated PRM air trapping quantification and to the gold-standard diagnosis of BOS as per National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus criteria.RESULTS: Using a previously established threshold of 28% air trapping on PRM, the diagnostic performance for BOS was as follows: sensitivity 56% and specificity 94% (area under the receiver operator curve [AUC]=0.75). Radiologist review of inspiratory CT images alone resulted in a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 69% (AUC=0.74). When radiologists assessed both inspiratory and end-expiratory CT images in combination, the sensitivity was 92% and the specificity was 59% (AUC=0.75). The highest performance was observed when the quantitative PRM report was reviewed alongside inspiratory and end-expiratory CT images, with a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 73% (AUC=0.83).CONCLUSIONS: In the CT diagnosis of BOS, qualitative expert radiologist interpretation was noninferior to quantitative PRM. The highest level of diagnostic performance was achieved by the combination of quantitative PRM measurements with qualitative image feature assessments.

View details for DOI 10.1097/RTI.0000000000000595

View details for PubMedID 33999570