Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Intra-individual comparison of coronary calcium scoring between photon counting detector- and energy integrating detector-CT: Effects on risk reclassification.
Wolf, Elias V; Halfmann, Moritz C; Schoepf, U Joseph; Zsarnoczay, Emese; Fink, Nicola; Griffith, Joseph P; Aquino, Gilberto J; Willemink, Martin J; O'Doherty, Jim; Hell, Michaela M; Suranyi, Pal; Kabakus, Ismael M; Baruah, Dhiraj; Varga-Szemes, Akos; Emrich, Tilman.
Afiliação
  • Wolf EV; Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
  • Halfmann MC; Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.
  • Schoepf UJ; Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
  • Zsarnoczay E; German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, Partner Site Rhine-Main, Mainz, Germany.
  • Fink N; Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.
  • Griffith JP; Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.
  • Aquino GJ; MTA-SE Cardiovascular Imaging Research Group, Medical Imaging Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Willemink MJ; Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.
  • O'Doherty J; Department of Radiology, University Hospital Munich, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
  • Hell MM; Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.
  • Suranyi P; Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.
  • Kabakus IM; Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
  • Baruah D; Segmed, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, United States.
  • Varga-Szemes A; Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.
  • Emrich T; Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., Malvern, PA, United States.
Front Cardiovasc Med ; 9: 1053398, 2022.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36741832
ABSTRACT

Purpose:

To compare coronary artery calcium volume and score (CACS) between photon-counting detector (PCD) and conventional energy integrating detector (EID) computed tomography (CT) in a phantom and prospective patient study.

Methods:

A commercially available CACS phantom was scanned with a standard CACS protocol (120 kVp, slice thickness/increment 3/1.5 mm, and a quantitative Qr36 kernel), with filtered back projection on the EID-CT, and with monoenergetic reconstruction at 70 keV and quantum iterative reconstruction off on the PCD-CT. The same settings were used to prospectively acquire data in patients (n = 23, 65 ± 12.1 years), who underwent PCD- and EID-CT scans with a median of 5.5 (3.0-12.5) days between the two scans in the period from August 2021 to March 2022. CACS was quantified using a commercially available software solution. A regression formula was obtained from the aforementioned comparison and applied to simulate risk reclassification in a pre-existing cohort of 514 patients who underwent a cardiac EID-CT between January and December 2021.

Results:

Based on the phantom experiment, CACS PCD-CT showed a more accurate measurement of the reference CAC volumes (overestimation of physical volumes PCD-CT 66.1 ± 1.6% vs. EID-CT 77.2 ± 0.5%). CACS EID-CT and CACS PCD-CT were strongly correlated, however, the latter measured significantly lower values in the phantom (CACS PCD-CT 60.5 (30.2-170.3) vs CACS EID-CT 74.7 (34.6-180.8), p = 0.0015, r = 0.99, mean bias -9.7, Limits of Agreement (LoA) -36.6/17.3) and in patients (non-significant) (CACS PCD-CT 174.3 (11.1-872.7) vs CACS EID-CT 218.2 (18.5-876.4), p = 0.10, r = 0.94, mean bias -41.1, LoA -315.3/232.5). The systematic lower measurements of Agatston score on PCD-CT system led to reclassification of 5.25% of our simulated patient cohort to a lower classification class.

Conclusion:

CACS PCD-CT is feasible and correlates strongly with CACS EID-CT , however, leads to lower CACS values. PCD-CT may provide results that are more accurate for CACS than EID-CT.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article