Improved coronary calcium detection and quantification with low-dose full field-of-view photon-counting CT: a phantom study.
Calcium
Coronary vessels
Imaging phantoms
Radiation dosage
X-ray computed tomography
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2022
May 2022
Historique:
received:
31
08
2021
accepted:
17
10
2021
revised:
31
08
2021
pubmed:
9
1
2022
medline:
28
4
2022
entrez:
8
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of the current study was to systematically assess coronary artery calcium (CAC) detection and quantification for spectral photon-counting CT (SPCCT) in comparison to conventional CT and, in addition, to evaluate the possibility of radiation dose reduction. Routine clinical CAC CT protocols were used for data acquisition and reconstruction of two CAC containing cylindrical inserts which were positioned within an anthropomorphic thorax phantom. In addition, data was acquired at 50% lower radiation dose by reducing tube current, and slice thickness was decreased. Calcifications were considered detectable when three adjacent voxels exceeded the CAC scoring threshold of 130 Hounsfield units (HU). Quantification of CAC (as volume and mass score) was assessed by comparison with known physical quantities. In comparison with CT, SPCCT detected 33% and 7% more calcifications for the small and large phantoms, respectively. At reduced radiation dose and reduced slice thickness, small phantom CAC detection increased by 108% and 150% for CT and SPCCT, respectively. For the large phantom size, noise levels interfered with CAC detection. Although comparable between CT and SPCCT, routine protocols CAC quantification showed large deviations (up to 134%) from physical CAC volume. At reduced radiation dose and slice thickness, physical volume overestimations decreased to 96% and 72% for CT and SPCCT, respectively. In comparison with volume scores, mass score deviations from physical quantities were smaller. CAC detection on SPCCT is superior to CT, and was even preserved at a reduced radiation dose. Furthermore, SPCCT allows for improved physical volume estimation. • In comparison with conventional CT, increased coronary artery calcium detection (up to 156%) for spectral photon-counting CT was found, even at 50% radiation dose reduction. • Spectral photon-counting CT can more accurately measure physical volumes than conventional CT, especially at reduced slice thickness and for high-density coronary artery calcium. • For both conventional and spectral photon-counting CT, reduced slice thickness reconstructions result in more accurate physical mass approximation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34997284
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08421-8
pii: 10.1007/s00330-021-08421-8
doi:
Substances chimiques
Calcium
SY7Q814VUP
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3447-3457Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.
Références
Sandfort V, Persson M, Pourmorteza A et al (2020) Spectral photon-counting CT in cardiovascular imaging. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2020.12.005
doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2020.12.005
pubmed: 33358186
Willemink MJ, Persson M, Pourmorteza A et al (2018) Photon-counting CT: technical principles and clinical prospects. Radiology 289:293–312. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018172656
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018172656
pubmed: 30179101
Leng S, Yu Z, Halaweish A et al (2016) Dose-efficient ultrahigh-resolution scan mode using a photon counting detector computed tomography system. J Med Imaging 3:043504. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jmi.3.4.043504
doi: 10.1117/1.jmi.3.4.043504
Pourmorteza A, Symons R, Henning A et al (2018) Dose efficiency of quarter-millimeter photon-counting computed tomography: first-in-human results. Invest Radiol 53:365–372. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000463
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000463
pubmed: 29595753
Symons R, Sandfort V, Mallek M et al (2019) Coronary artery calcium scoring with photon-counting CT: first in vivo human experience. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 35:733–739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-018-1499-6
doi: 10.1007/s10554-018-1499-6
pubmed: 30635819
Wang AS, Harrison D, Lobastov V, Tkaczyk JE (2011) Pulse pileup statistics for energy discriminating photon counting X-ray detectors. Med Phys 38:4265–4275. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3592932
doi: 10.1118/1.3592932
pubmed: 21859028
Leng S, Gutjahr R, Ferrero A, et al (2017) Ultra-high spatial resolution, multi-energy CT using photon counting detector technology. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.03.040
Mannil M, Hickethier T, Von Spiczak J et al (2018) Photon-counting CT: high-resolution imaging of coronary stents. Invest Radiol 53:143–149. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000420
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000420
pubmed: 28945655
Sandstedt M, Marsh J, Rajendran K et al (2021) Improved coronary calcification quantification using photon-counting-detector CT: an ex vivo study in cadaveric specimens. Eur Radiol 31:6621–6630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-07780-6
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07780-6
pubmed: 33713174
pmcid: 8380662
Budoff MJ, Achenbach S, Blumenthal RS et al (2006) Assessment of coronary artery disease by cardiac computed tomography: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and Committee on C. Circulation 114:1761–1791. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.178458
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.178458
pubmed: 17015792
WHO Fact Sheet - The top 10 causes of death. In: May 2018. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death . January 2020.
Greenland P, Alpert JS, Beller GA et al (2010) 2010 ACCF/AHA guideline for assessment of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults: Executive summary: a report of the American College of cardiology foundation/American Heart association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation 122:2748–2764. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182051bab
doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182051bab
pubmed: 21098427
Blaha MJ, Mortensen MB, Kianoush S et al (2017) Coronary artery calcium scoring: is it time for a change in methodology? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 10:923–937
Hecht H, Blaha MJ, Berman DS et al (2017) Clinical indications for coronary artery calcium scoring in asymptomatic patients: expert consensus statement from the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 11:157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2017.02.010
doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2017.02.010
pubmed: 28283309
Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ, Zusmer NR, Viamonte M Jr, Detrano R (1990) Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 15:827–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(90)90282-T
van der Werf NR, Si-Mohamed S, Rodesch PA et al (2021) Coronary calcium scoring potential of large field-of-view spectral photon-counting CT: a phantom study. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08152-w
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08152-w
pubmed: 34255159
pmcid: 8660747
McCollough CH, Ulzheimer S, Halliburton SS, Shanneik K, White RD, Kalender WA (2007) Coronary artery calcium: a multi-institutional, multimanufacturer international standard for quantification at cardiac CT. Radiology 243:527–538. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2432050808
Callister TQ, Cooil B, Raya SP et al (1998) Coronary artery disease: improved reproducibility of calcium scoring with an electron-beam CT volumetric method. Radiology 208:807–814. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.208.3.9722864
doi: 10.1148/radiology.208.3.9722864
pubmed: 9722864
Hoffmann U, Siebert U, Bull-Stewart A et al (2006) Evidence for lower variability of coronary artery calcium mineral mass measurements by multi-detector computed tomography in a community-based cohort–consequences for progression studies. Eur J Radiol 57:396–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.12.027
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.12.027
pubmed: 16434160
Groen JM, Greuter MJ, Schmidt B et al (2007) The influence of heart rate, slice thickness, and calcification density on calcium scores using 64-slice multidetector computed tomography: a systematic phantom study. Invest Radiol 42:848–855. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e318154c549
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318154c549
pubmed: 18007157
van Ooijen PMA, Vliegenthart R, Witteman JC, Oudkerk M (2005) Influence of scoring parameter settings on Agatston and volume scores for coronary calcification. Eur Radiol 15:102–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2479-x
doi: 10.1007/s00330-004-2479-x
pubmed: 15372193
Ren L, Rajendran K, McCollough CH, Yu L (2019) Radiation dose efficiency of multi-energy photon-counting-detector CT for dual-contrast imaging. Phys Med Biol 64:245003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab55bf
doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab55bf
pubmed: 31703217
pmcid: 6980362
Vonder M, Pelgrim GJ, Meyer M et al (2017) Dose reduction techniques in coronary calcium scoring: the effect of iterative reconstruction combined with low tube voltage on calcium scores in a thoracic phantom. Eur J Radiol 93:229–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.06.001
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.06.001
pubmed: 28668419
Vonder M, van der Werf NR, Leiner T et al (2018) The impact of dose reduction on the quantification of coronary artery calcifications and risk categorization: a systematic review. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 12:352–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2018.06.001
doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2018.06.001
pubmed: 29960743
van der Werf NR, Willemink MJ, Willems TP et al (2017) Influence of dose reduction and iterative reconstruction on CT calcium scores: a multi-manufacturer dynamic phantom study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 33:899–914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-017-1061-y
doi: 10.1007/s10554-017-1061-y
pubmed: 28102510
pmcid: 5406488
Ode S, Kobayashi Y, Nozu Y, Ogawa Y (2016) The impact of iterative reconstruction on reducing the radiation dose for coronary calcium scoring: an investigation using pulsating calcified coronary phantom. Journal of St. Marianna University 7:95–103
doi: 10.17264/stmarieng.7.95
Schindler A, Vliegenthart R, Schoepf UJ et al (2014) Iterative image reconstruction techniques for CT coronary artery calcium quantification: comparison with traditional filtered back projection in vitro and in vivo. Radiology 270:387–393. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130233
doi: 10.1148/radiol.13130233
pubmed: 24471388
Willemink MJ, den Harder AM, Foppen W et al (2016) Finding the optimal dose reduction and iterative reconstruction level for coronary calcium scoring. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 10:69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2015.08.004
doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2015.08.004
pubmed: 26342405
den Harder AM, Wolterink JM, Willemink MJ et al (2016) Submillisievert coronary calcium quantification using model-based iterative reconstruction: a within-patient analysis. Eur J Radiol 85:2152–2159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.09.028
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.09.028
Sulaiman N, Soon J, Park JK et al (2017) Comparison of low-dose coronary artery calcium scoring using low tube current technique and hybrid iterative reconstruction vs. filtered back projection. Clin Imaging 43:19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.01.017
doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.01.017
pubmed: 28167282
McCollough CH, Primak AN, Saba O et al (2007) Dose performance of a 64-channel dual-source CT scanner. Radiology 243:775–784. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2433061165
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2433061165
pubmed: 17446525
Booij R, van der Werf NR, Budde RPJ et al (2020) Dose reduction for CT coronary calcium scoring with a calcium-aware image reconstruction technique: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 30:3346–3355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06709-9
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06709-9
pubmed: 32072259
pmcid: 7248036
van Praagh GD, van der Werf NR, Wang J et al (2021) Fully automated quantification method (FQM) of coronary calcium in an anthropomorphic phantom. Med Phys 48(7):3730–3740. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14912
doi: 10.1002/mp.14912
Blaha MJ, Cainzos-Achirica M, Greenland P et al (2016) Role of coronary artery calcium score of zero and other negative risk markers for cardiovascular disease: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Circulation 133:849–858. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018524
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018524
pubmed: 26801055
pmcid: 4775391
Willemink MJ, Takx RAP, De Jong PA et al (2014) The impact of CT radiation dose reduction and iterative reconstruction algorithms from four different vendors on coronary calcium scoring. Eur Radiol 24:2201–2212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3217-7
doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3217-7
pubmed: 24889996
Takx RAP, Willemink MJ, Nathoe HM et al (2014) The effect of iterative reconstruction on quantitative computed tomography assessment of coronary plaque composition. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 30:155–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-013-0293-8
doi: 10.1007/s10554-013-0293-8
pubmed: 24046026
Kurata A, Dharampal A, Dedic A et al (2013) Impact of iterative reconstruction on CT coronary calcium quantification. Eur Radiol 23:3246–3252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3022-8
doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-3022-8
pubmed: 24057202
Takahashi M, Kimura F, Umezawa T et al (2016) Comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques in quantifying coronary calcium. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 10:61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2015.07.012
doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2015.07.012
pubmed: 26276567
Oda S, Utsunomiya D, Nakaura T et al (2017) The influence of iterative reconstruction on coronary artery calcium scoring—phantom and clinical studies. Acad Radiol 24:295–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.11.003
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.11.003
pubmed: 27913107
van der Werf NR, Willemink MJ, Willems TP et al (2017) Influence of iterative reconstruction on coronary calcium scores at multiple heart rates: a multivendor phantom study on state-of-the-art CT systems. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 0:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-017-1292-y
doi: 10.1007/s10554-017-1292-y