Threshold adjusted calcium scoring using CT is less susceptible to cardiac motion and more accurate
Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.Medical Physics (Impact Factor: 2.64). 03/2009; 36(2):438-46. DOI: 10.1118/1.3049590
The purpose of this paper is to investigate calcium scoring on computed tomography (CT) using an adjusted threshold depending on the maximum Hounsfield value within the calcification (HU(peak)). The volume of 19 calcifications was retrospectively determined on 64-slice multidetector CT and dual source CT (DSCT) at different thresholds and the threshold associated with the physical volume was determined. In addition, approximately 10 000 computer simulations were done simulating the same process for calcifications with mixed density. Using these data a relation between the HU(peak) and the threshold could be established. Hereafter, this relation was assessed by scanning six calcifications in a phantom at 40-110 beats per minute using DSCT. The influence of motion was determined and the measured calcium scores were compared to the physical volumes and mass. A positive linear correlation was found between the scoring threshold and the HU(peak) of the calcifications both for the phantom measurements as for the computer simulations. Using this relation the individual threshold for each calcification could be calculated. Calcium scores of the moving calcifications determined with an adjusted threshold were approximately 30% less susceptible to cardiac motion compared to standard calcium scoring. Furthermore, these scores approximated the physical volume and mass at least 10% better than the standard calcium scores. The threshold in calcium scoring should be adjusted for each individual calcification based on the HU(peak) of the calcification. Calcium scoring using an adjusted threshold is less susceptible to cardiac motion and more accurate compared to the physical values.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine differences in coronary artery calcium (CAC) measurement performed with the use of 2 generations of multidetector computed tomography (CT) scanners of the same manufacturer. Agatston Score (AS) and calcium mass (CM) were measured with a 4-row scanner (AS4 and CM4) and a 64-row scanner (AS64 and CM64) using a cardiac phantom with calcium inserts. The results of the AS measurements (mean ± SD) varied significantly between the equipment: 880.6 ± 30.1 (AS4) vs 586.5 ± 24.0 (AS64; P < 0.0001). The AS interscanner variability was 31.6% for the phantom and from 25.5% to 110.1% for particular inserts. Mean ± SD CM values were different as well: 192.8 ± 5.0 mg (CM4) vs 152.4 ± 2.6 mg (CM64; P < 0.0001). Determination of CM with 64-row CT was more accurate than that with an older scanner; the mean relative error was -9.1% and 15.0%, respectively (P < 0.0001). The CM interscanner variability was 23.3% for the phantom and from 19.0% to 122.8% for particular inserts. The interexamination variability ranged from 1.7% (CM64) to 5.6% (AS4). Coronary artery calcium scoring with the 64-row CT scanner is more accurate than with the 4-row device The difference between the results of AS and CM measurements carried out with both scanners is statistically significant.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess whether absolute mass scores are comparable or differ between identical 64-slice MDCT scanners of the same manufacturer and to compare absolute mass scores to the physical mass and between scan modes using a calcified phantom. A non-moving anthropomorphic phantom with nine calcifications of three sizes and three densities was scanned 30 times on three 64-slice MDCT scanners of manufacturer A and on three 64-slice MDCT scanners of manufacturer B in both sequential and spiral scan mode. The mean mass scores and mass score variabilities of seven calcifications were determined for all scanners; two non-detectable calcifications were omitted. It was analyzed whether identical scanners yielded similar or significantly different mass scores. Furthermore mass scores were compared to the physical mass and mass scores were compared between scan modes. The mass score calibration factor was determined for all scanners. Mass scores obtained on identical scanners were similar for almost all calcifications. Overall, mass score differences between the scanners were small ranging from 1.5 to 3.4% for the total mass scores, and most differences between scanners were observed for high density calcifications. Mass scores were significantly different from the physical mass for almost all calcifications and all scanners. In sequential mode the total physical mass (167.8 mg) was significantly overestimated (+2.3%) for 4 out of 6 scanners. In spiral mode a significant overestimation (+2.5%) was found for system B and a significant underestimation (-1.8%) for two scanners of system A. Mass scores were dependent on the scan mode, for manufacturer A scores were higher in sequential mode and for manufacturer B in spiral mode. For system A using spiral scan mode no differences were found between identical scanners, whereas a few differences were found using sequential mode. For system B the scan mode did not affect the number of different mass scores between identical scanners. Mass scores obtained in the same scan mode are comparable between identical 64-slice CT scanners and identical 64-slice CT scanners on different sites can be used in follow-up studies. Furthermore, for all systems significant differences were found between mass scores and the physical calcium mass; however, the differences were relatively small and consistent.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In cardiac and coronary evaluation, the use of CT and magnetic resonance is gaining popularity over the more conventional techniques. However, it requires the use of advanced postprocessing techniques for visualization and (quantitative) evaluation of the acquired datasets. Many techniques exist and are available to the radiologist on commercially available workstations, but each clinical question requires its own approach. Using the correct technique enables accurate evaluation and diagnosis, but caution and knowledge is needed to achieve correct interpretation of the qualitative and quantitative results and to avoid use of inappropriate visualization or evaluation.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.