PURPOSE: True automated detection of coronary artery stenoses might be useful whenever expert evaluation is not available, or as a "second reader" to enhance diagnostic confidence. We evaluated the accuracy of a PC-based stenosis detection tool alone and combined with expert interpretation. METHODS: One hundred coronary CT angiography datasets were evaluated with the automated software alone, by manual interpretation (axial images, multiplanar reformations and maximum intensity projections in free double-oblique planes), and by expert interpretation aware of the automated findings. Stenoses ≥ 50 % were noted per-vessel and per-patient, and compared with invasive angiography. RESULTS: Automated post-processing was successful in 90 % of patients (88 % of vessels). When excluding uninterpretable datasets, per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 89 %, 79 %, 74 % and 92 % (per-vessel: 82 %, 85 %, 48 % and 96 %). All 100 datasets were evaluable by expert interpretation. Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 95 %, 95 %, 93 % and 97 % (per-vessel: 89 %,98 %, 88 % and 98 %). Knowing the results of automated interpretation did not improve the performance of expert readers. CONCLUSION: Automated off-line post-processing of coronary CT angiography shows adequate sensitivity, but relatively low specificity in coronary stenosis detection. It does not increase accuracy of expert interpretation. Failure of post-processing in 10 % of all patients necessitates additional manual image work-up. KEY POINTS: • Coronary CT angiography is increasingly used for detection of coronary artery stenosis • Computer assisted diagnosis might facilitate and speed up interpretation • Performance in properly segmented cases compared favourably with manual image interpretation • However, automated segmentation failed in about 10 % of cases • Manual reading is still mandatory; computer assisted diagnosis can provide a useful second read.
PURPOSE: True automated detection of coronary artery stenoses might be useful whenever expert evaluation is not available, or as a "second reader" to enhance diagnostic confidence. We evaluated the accuracy of a PC-based stenosis detection tool alone and combined with expert interpretation. METHODS: One hundred coronary CT angiography datasets were evaluated with the automated software alone, by manual interpretation (axial images, multiplanar reformations and maximum intensity projections in free double-oblique planes), and by expert interpretation aware of the automated findings. Stenoses ≥ 50 % were noted per-vessel and per-patient, and compared with invasive angiography. RESULTS: Automated post-processing was successful in 90 % of patients (88 % of vessels). When excluding uninterpretable datasets, per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 89 %, 79 %, 74 % and 92 % (per-vessel: 82 %, 85 %, 48 % and 96 %). All 100 datasets were evaluable by expert interpretation. Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 95 %, 95 %, 93 % and 97 % (per-vessel: 89 %,98 %, 88 % and 98 %). Knowing the results of automated interpretation did not improve the performance of expert readers. CONCLUSION: Automated off-line post-processing of coronary CT angiography shows adequate sensitivity, but relatively low specificity in coronary stenosis detection. It does not increase accuracy of expert interpretation. Failure of post-processing in 10 % of all patients necessitates additional manual image work-up. KEY POINTS: • Coronary CT angiography is increasingly used for detection of coronary artery stenosis • Computer assisted diagnosis might facilitate and speed up interpretation • Performance in properly segmented cases compared favourably with manual image interpretation • However, automated segmentation failed in about 10 % of cases • Manual reading is still mandatory; computer assisted diagnosis can provide a useful second read.
Authors: Allen J Taylor; Manuel Cerqueira; John McB Hodgson; Daniel Mark; James Min; Patrick O'Gara; Geoffrey D Rubin Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-10-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anja J Reimann; Ilias Tsiflikas; Harald Brodoefel; Michael Scheuering; Daniel Rinck; Andreas F Kopp; Claus D Claussen; Martin Heuschmid Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-09-28 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Stephanie Busch; Thorsten R C Johnson; Konstantin Nikolaou; Franz von Ziegler; Andreas Knez; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-12-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mark J Boogers; Joanne D Schuijf; Pieter H Kitslaar; Jacob M van Werkhoven; Fleur R de Graaf; Eric Boersma; Joëlla E van Velzen; Jouke Dijkstra; Isabel M Adame; Lucia J Kroft; Albert de Roos; Joop H M Schreur; Mark W Heijenbrok; J Wouter Jukema; Johan H C Reiber; Jeroen J Bax Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-07
Authors: Victor Cheng; Ariel Gutstein; Arik Wolak; Yasuyuki Suzuki; Damini Dey; Heidi Gransar; Louise E J Thomson; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Daniel S Berman Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-07
Authors: Elisabeth Arnoldi; Mulugeta Gebregziabher; U Joseph Schoepf; Roman Goldenberg; Luis Ramos-Duran; Peter L Zwerner; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Philip Costello; Christian Thilo Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-11-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jonathan D Dodd; Johannes Rieber; Eugene Pomerantsev; Vithaya Chaithiraphan; Stephan Achenbach; Javier M Moreiras; Suhny Abbara; Udo Hoffmann; Thomas J Brady; Ricardo C Cury Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Leon Lenchik; Laura Heacock; Ashley A Weaver; Robert D Boutin; Tessa S Cook; Jason Itri; Christopher G Filippi; Rao P Gullapalli; James Lee; Marianna Zagurovskaya; Tara Retson; Kendra Godwin; Joey Nicholson; Ponnada A Narayana Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 3.173