Structural prior information can improve electrical impedance tomography (EIT) reconstruction. In this contribution, we introduce a discrete cosine transformation-based (DCT-based) EIT reconstruction algorithm to demonstrate a way to incorporate the structural prior with the EIT reconstruction process. Structural prior information is obtained from other available imaging methods, e.g., thorax-CT. The DCT-based approach creates a functional EIT image of regional lung ventilation while preserving the introduced structural information. This leads to an easier interpretation in clinical settings while maintaining the advantages of EIT in terms of bedside monitoring during mechanical ventilation. Structural priors introduced in the DCT-based approach are of two categories in terms of different levels of information included: a contour prior only differentiates lung and non-lung region, while a detail prior includes information, such as atelectasis, within the lung area. To demonstrate the increased interpretability of the EIT image through structural prior in the DCT-based approach, the DCT-based reconstructions were compared with reconstructions from a widely applied one-step Gauss-Newton solver with background prior and from the advanced GREIT algorithm. The comparisons were conducted both on simulation data and retrospective patient data. In the simulation, we used two sets of forward models to simulate different lung conditions. A contour prior and a detail prior were derived from simulation ground truth. With these two structural priors, the reconstructions from the DCT-based approach were compared with the reconstructions from both the one-step Gauss-Newton solver and the GREIT. The difference between the reconstructions and the simulation ground truth is calculated by theℓ2-norm image difference. In retrospective patient data analysis, datasets from six lung disease patients were included. For each patient, a detail prior was derived from the patient’s CT, respectively. The detail prior was used for the reconstructions using the DCT-based approach, which was compared with the reconstructions from the GREIT. The reconstructions from the DCT-based approach are more comprehensive and interpretable in terms of preserving the structure specified by the priors, both in simulation and retrospective patient data analysis. In simulation analysis, theℓ2-norm image difference of the DCT-based approach with a contour prior decreased on average by 34% from GREIT and 49% from the Gauss-Newton solver with background prior; for reconstructions of the DCT-based approach with detail prior, on average theℓ2-norm image difference is 53% less than GREIT and 63% less than the reconstruction with background prior. In retrospective patient data analysis, the reconstructions from both the DCT-based approach and GREIT can indicate the current patient status, but the DCT-based approach yields more interpretable results. However, it is worth noting that the preserved structure in the DCT-based approach is derived from another imaging method, not from the EIT measurement. If the structural prior is outdated or wrong, the result might be misleadingly interpreted, which induces false clinical conclusions. Further research in terms of evaluating the validity of the structural prior and detecting the outdated prior is necessary.