Coronary artery calcium scoring with photon-counting CT: first in vivo human experience.
Aged
Computed Tomography Angiography
/ instrumentation
Coronary Angiography
/ instrumentation
Coronary Artery Disease
/ diagnostic imaging
Coronary Vessels
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Phantoms, Imaging
Photons
Predictive Value of Tests
Prospective Studies
Radiation Dosage
Radiation Exposure
/ prevention & control
Reproducibility of Results
Severity of Illness Index
Vascular Calcification
/ diagnostic imaging
Coronary artery calcium score
Photon-counting CT
Radiation dose reduction
Journal
The international journal of cardiovascular imaging
ISSN: 1875-8312
Titre abrégé: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100969716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2019
Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
13
08
2018
accepted:
07
11
2018
pubmed:
13
1
2019
medline:
7
5
2019
entrez:
13
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the performance of photon-counting detector (PCD) computed tomography (CT) for coronary artery calcium (CAC) score imaging at standard and reduced radiation doses compared to conventional energy-integrating detector (EID) CT. A dedicated cardiac CT phantom, ten ex vivo human hearts, and ten asymptomatic volunteers underwent matched EID and PCD CT scans at different dose settings without ECG gating. CAC score, contrast, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated in the cardiac CT phantom. CAC score accuracy and reproducibility was assessed in the ex vivo hearts. Standard radiation dose (120 kVp, reference mAs = 80) in vivo CAC scans were compared against dose-reduced CAC scans (75% dose reduction; reference mAs = 20) for image quality and CAC score reproducibility. Interstudy agreement was assessed by using intraclass correlation (ICC), linear regression, and Bland-Altman analysis with 95% confidence interval limits of agreement (LOA). Calcium-soft tissue contrast and CNR were significantly higher for the PCD CAC scans in the cardiac CT phantom (all P < 0.01). Ex vivo hearts: CAC score reproducibility was significantly higher for the PCD scans at the lowest dose setting (50 mAs) (P = 0.002); score accuracy was similar for both detector systems at all dose settings. In vivo scans: the agreement between standard dose and low dose CAC score was significantly better for the PCD than for the EID with narrower LOA in Bland-Altman analysis, linear regression slopes closer to 1 (0.96 vs. 0.84), and higher ICC values (0.98 vs. 0.93, respectively). Phantom and in vivo human studies showed PCD may significantly improve CAC score image quality and/or reduce CAC score radiation dose while maintaining diagnostic image quality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30635819
doi: 10.1007/s10554-018-1499-6
pii: 10.1007/s10554-018-1499-6
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
733-739Subventions
Organisme : NIH intramural research program
ID : ZIACL090019
Organisme : NIH intramural research program
ID : ZIAEB000072
Références
Eur Radiol. 2003 Mar;13(3):484-97
pubmed: 12594550
JAMA. 2004 Jan 14;291(2):210-5
pubmed: 14722147
N Engl J Med. 2008 Mar 27;358(13):1336-45
pubmed: 18367736
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Aug 7;53(15):4031-47
pubmed: 18612175
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Jul 13;169(13):1188-94
pubmed: 19597067
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Sep 10;167(6):2932-7
pubmed: 22959869
Eur Radiol. 2013 Nov;23(11):2927-33
pubmed: 23807568
Med Phys. 2013 Oct;40(10):100901
pubmed: 24089889
J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Jun;11(6):634-5
pubmed: 24726446
Radiology. 2014 Nov;273(2):373-82
pubmed: 24877984
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Jul;8(7):e003316
pubmed: 26156016
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2016 Jan-Feb;10(1):69-75
pubmed: 26342405
Invest Radiol. 2016 Jul;51(7):421-9
pubmed: 26818529
Radiology. 2016 Dec;281(3):737-748
pubmed: 27636027
Radiology. 2017 Jun;283(3):723-728
pubmed: 27918709
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Jan 7;62(1):202-213
pubmed: 27991453
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Aug;33(8):1253-1261
pubmed: 28289990
Med Phys. 2017 Oct;44(10):5120-5127
pubmed: 28444761
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 6;7(1):4784
pubmed: 28684756
Radiology. 2017 Dec;285(3):980-989
pubmed: 28753389
Invest Radiol. 2018 Mar;53(3):135-142
pubmed: 28926370
Invest Radiol. 2018 Mar;53(3):143-149
pubmed: 28945655
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Dec;38(12):2257-2263
pubmed: 28982793
Eur Radiol. 2018 Aug;28(8):3318-3325
pubmed: 29460069
Invest Radiol. 2018 Jun;53(6):365-372
pubmed: 29595753
Eur Radiol Exp. 2017;1(1):25
pubmed: 29708205
Radiology. 2018 Nov;289(2):293-312
pubmed: 30179101
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2018 Nov - Dec;12(6):509-515
pubmed: 30509378