AIMS: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring has emerged as a tool for risk stratification and potentially for monitoring response to risk factor modification. Therefore, repeat measurements should provide robust results and low inter-scanner variability for allowing meaningful comparison. The purpose of this study was to investigate inter-scanner variability of CAC for Agatston, volume, and mass scores by head-to-head comparison using two different cardiac computed tomography scanners: 64-detector multislice CT (MSCT) and 64-slice dual-source CT (DSCT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty patients underwent CAC measurements on both 64-MSCT (GE LightSpeed XT scanner: 120 kV, 70 mAs, 2.5 mm slices) and 64-DSCT (Siemens Somatom Definition: 120 kV, 80 mAs, 3 mm slices) within <100 days (0-97). Retrospective intra-scan comparison revealed an excellent correlation. The excellent intra-scan (inter-observer) agreement was documented by narrow limits of agreement and a correlation coefficient of variation (COV) of r ≥ 0.99 (P < 0.001) for all CAC scores with a low COV for both scanners (64-MSCT/64-DSCT), i.e. Agatston (2.0/2.1%), mass (3.0/2.0%), and volume (4.7/3.9%). Inter-scanner comparison revealed larger Bland-Altman (BA) limits of agreement, despite high correlation (r ≥ 0.97) for all scores, with COV at 15.1, 21.6, and 44.9% for Agatston, mass, and volume scores. The largest BA limits were observed for volume scores (-1552.8 to 574.2), which was massively improved (-241.0 to 300.4, COV 11.5%) after reanalysing the 64-DSCT scans (Siemens) with GE software/workstation (while Siemens software/workstation does not allow cross-vendor analysis). Phantom measurements confirmed overestimation of volume scores by 'syngo Ca-Scoring' (Siemens) software which should therefore be reviewed (vendor has been notified). CONCLUSION: Intra- and inter-scan agreement of CAC measurement in a given data set is excellent. Inter-scanner variability is reasonable, particularly for Agatston units in the clinically most relevant range <1000. The use of different software solutions has a greater influence particularly on volume scores than the use of different scanner types.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring has emerged as a tool for risk stratification and potentially for monitoring response to risk factor modification. Therefore, repeat measurements should provide robust results and low inter-scanner variability for allowing meaningful comparison. The purpose of this study was to investigate inter-scanner variability of CAC for Agatston, volume, and mass scores by head-to-head comparison using two different cardiac computed tomography scanners: 64-detector multislice CT (MSCT) and 64-slice dual-source CT (DSCT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty patients underwent CAC measurements on both 64-MSCT (GE LightSpeed XT scanner: 120 kV, 70 mAs, 2.5 mm slices) and 64-DSCT (Siemens Somatom Definition: 120 kV, 80 mAs, 3 mm slices) within <100 days (0-97). Retrospective intra-scan comparison revealed an excellent correlation. The excellent intra-scan (inter-observer) agreement was documented by narrow limits of agreement and a correlation coefficient of variation (COV) of r ≥ 0.99 (P < 0.001) for all CAC scores with a low COV for both scanners (64-MSCT/64-DSCT), i.e. Agatston (2.0/2.1%), mass (3.0/2.0%), and volume (4.7/3.9%). Inter-scanner comparison revealed larger Bland-Altman (BA) limits of agreement, despite high correlation (r ≥ 0.97) for all scores, with COV at 15.1, 21.6, and 44.9% for Agatston, mass, and volume scores. The largest BA limits were observed for volume scores (-1552.8 to 574.2), which was massively improved (-241.0 to 300.4, COV 11.5%) after reanalysing the 64-DSCT scans (Siemens) with GE software/workstation (while Siemens software/workstation does not allow cross-vendor analysis). Phantom measurements confirmed overestimation of volume scores by 'syngo Ca-Scoring' (Siemens) software which should therefore be reviewed (vendor has been notified). CONCLUSION: Intra- and inter-scan agreement of CAC measurement in a given data set is excellent. Inter-scanner variability is reasonable, particularly for Agatston units in the clinically most relevant range <1000. The use of different software solutions has a greater influence particularly on volume scores than the use of different scanner types.
Authors: Tobias A Fuchs; Julia Stehli; Svetlana Dougoud; Bert-Ram Sah; Sacha Bull; Olivier F Clerc; Mathias Possner; Ronny R Buechel; Oliver Gaemperli; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Andrew D Choi; Eric S Leifer; Jeannie Yu; Sujata M Shanbhag; Kathie Bronson; Andrew E Arai; Marcus Y Chen Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2016-07-27
Authors: Jack W Lambert; Yuxin Sun; Karen G Ordovas; Robert G Gould; Sizhe Wang; Benjamin M Yeh Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2018 May/Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Konrad Pieszko; Aakash D Shanbhag; Mark Lemley; Mark Hyun; Serge Van Kriekinge; Yuka Otaki; Joanna X Liang; Daniel S Berman; Damini Dey; Piotr J Slomka Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christopher W Pavitt; Katie Harron; Alistair C Lindsay; Sayeh Zielke; Robin Ray; Daniel Gordon; Michael B Rubens; Simon P Padley; Edward D Nicol Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-08-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Martin J Willemink; Richard A P Takx; Pim A de Jong; Ricardo P J Budde; Ronald L A W Bleys; Marco Das; Joachim E Wildberger; Mathias Prokop; Nico Buls; Johan de Mey; Arnold M R Schilham; Tim Leiner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michelle C Williams; Saroj K Golay; Amanda Hunter; Jonathan R Weir-McCall; Lucja Mlynska; Marc R Dweck; Neal G Uren; John H Reid; Steff C Lewis; Colin Berry; Edwin J R van Beek; Giles Roditi; David E Newby; Saeed Mirsadraee Journal: Open Heart Date: 2015-05-19
Authors: Franz von Ziegler; Michaela Brendel; Christopher Uebleis; Susanne Helbig; Martin Greif; Janine Ruemmler; Christoph Becker; Marcus Hacker; Gerhard Steinbeck; Alexander Becker Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 2.298