Published in

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Investigative Radiology, 1(57), p. 13-22, 2021

DOI: 10.1097/rli.0000000000000808

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Objectives Although the Agatston score is a commonly used quantification method, rescan reproducibility is suboptimal, and different CT scanners result in different scores. In 2007, McCollough et al (Radiology 2007;243:527–538) proposed a standard for coronary artery calcium quantification. Advancements in CT technology over the last decade, however, allow for improved acquisition and reconstruction methods. This study aims to investigate the feasibility of a reproducible reduced dose alternative of the standardized approach for coronary artery calcium quantification on state-of-the-art CT systems from 4 major vendors. Materials and Methods An anthropomorphic phantom containing 9 calcifications and 2 extension rings were used. Images were acquired with 4 state-of-the-art CT systems using routine protocols and a variety of tube voltages (80–120 kV), tube currents (100% to 25% dose levels), slice thicknesses (3/2.5 and 1/1.25 mm), and reconstruction techniques (filtered back projection and iterative reconstruction). Every protocol was scanned 5 times after repositioning the phantom to assess reproducibility. Calcifications were quantified as Agatston scores. Results Reducing tube voltage to 100 kV, dose to 75%, and slice thickness to 1 or 1.25 mm combined with higher iterative reconstruction levels resulted in an on average 36% lower intrascanner variability (interquartile range) compared with the standard 120 kV protocol. Interscanner variability per phantom size decreased by 34% on average. With the standard protocol, on average, 6.2 ± 0.4 calcifications were detected, whereas 7.0 ± 0.4 were detected with the proposed protocol. Pairwise comparisons of Agatston scores between scanners within the same phantom size demonstrated 3 significantly different comparisons at the standard protocol (P < 0.05), whereas no significantly different comparisons arose at the proposed protocol (P > 0.05). Conclusions On state-of-the-art CT systems of 4 different vendors, a 25% reduced dose, thin-slice calcium scoring protocol led to improved intrascanner and interscanner reproducibility and increased detectability of small and low-density calcifications in this phantom. The protocol should be extensively validated before clinical use, but it could potentially improve clinical interscanner/interinstitutional reproducibility and enable more consistent risk assessment and treatment strategies.