OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of visual estimation of coronary artery calcium (CAC) from computed tomography attenuation correction (CTAC) scans performed for hybrid positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). BACKGROUND: At the time of MPI, hybrid systems obtain a low-dose, non-electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated CT scan that is used to perform attenuation correction. Utility of this CTAC scan in estimating actual CAC as measured by Agatston score (AS) on standard ECG-gated scans has not been previously studied. METHODS: A total of 492 patients, from 3 centers, receiving both MPI with CTAC and a standard CAC scan were studied. At each site, experienced readers blinded to AS reviewed CTAC images, visually estimating CAC on a 6-level scale: classifying patients as estimated AS of 0, 1 to 9, 10 to 99, 100 to 300, 400 to 999, or ≥1,000. Agreement between visually estimated coronary artery calcium (VECAC) on CTAC and AS, measured standardly and converted to the same scale, was evaluated, as was inter-reader agreement. RESULTS: Although CTAC images are low dose and nongated, a high degree of association was observed between VECAC and AS, with 63% of VECACs in the same category as the AS category and 93% within 1 category. Weighted kappa was 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.88 to 0.91, p < 0.0001). High weighted kappa statistics were observed for each site, scanner type, and sex. Readers reported identical scores in 65% of cases and scores within 1 category in 93%. CONCLUSIONS: CAC can be visually assessed from low-dose CTAC scans with high agreement with AS. CTAC scans should be routinely assessed for VECAC.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of visual estimation of coronary artery calcium (CAC) from computed tomography attenuation correction (CTAC) scans performed for hybrid positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). BACKGROUND: At the time of MPI, hybrid systems obtain a low-dose, non-electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated CT scan that is used to perform attenuation correction. Utility of this CTAC scan in estimating actual CAC as measured by Agatston score (AS) on standard ECG-gated scans has not been previously studied. METHODS: A total of 492 patients, from 3 centers, receiving both MPI with CTAC and a standard CAC scan were studied. At each site, experienced readers blinded to AS reviewed CTAC images, visually estimating CAC on a 6-level scale: classifying patientsas estimated AS of 0, 1 to 9, 10 to 99, 100 to 300, 400 to 999, or ≥1,000. Agreement between visually estimated coronary artery calcium (VECAC) on CTAC and AS, measured standardly and converted to the same scale, was evaluated, as was inter-reader agreement. RESULTS: Although CTAC images are low dose and nongated, a high degree of association was observed between VECAC and AS, with 63% of VECACs in the same category as the AS category and 93% within 1 category. Weighted kappa was 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.88 to 0.91, p < 0.0001). High weighted kappa statistics were observed for each site, scanner type, and sex. Readers reported identical scores in 65% of cases and scores within 1 category in 93%. CONCLUSIONS: CAC can be visually assessed from low-dose CTAC scans with high agreement with AS. CTAC scans should be routinely assessed for VECAC.
Authors: Michael Souvatzoglou; Frank Bengel; Raymonde Busch; Coletta Kruschke; Helga Fernolendt; Denise Lee; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-07-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Randall C Thompson; A Iain McGhie; Kevin W Moser; James H O'Keefe; Tracy L Stevens; John House; Nicolas Fritsch; Timothy M Bateman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Matthew D Gilman; Alan J Fischman; Vikram Krishnasetty; Elkan F Halpern; Suzanne L Aquino Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Cynthia H McCollough; Stefan Ulzheimer; Sandra S Halliburton; Kaiss Shanneik; Richard D White; Willi A Kalender Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E Gordon Depuey; John J Mahmarian; Todd D Miller; Andrew J Einstein; Christopher L Hansen; Thomas A Holly; Edward J Miller; Donna M Polk; L Samuel Wann Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Jacobo Kirsch; Ivan Buitrago; Tan-Lucien H Mohammed; Tianming Gao; Craig R Asher; Gian M Novaro Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Mohamed Mouden; Jan Paul Ottervanger; Jorik R Timmer; Stoffer Reiffers; Ad H J Oostdijk; Siert Knollema; Pieter L Jager Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2013-12-07 Impact factor: 5.952