OBJECTIVES: To analyse the effects of radiation dose reduction and iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms on coronary calcium scoring (CCS). METHODS: Fifteen ex vivo human hearts were examined in an anthropomorphic chest phantom using computed tomography (CT) systems from four vendors and examined at four dose levels using unenhanced prospectively ECG-triggered protocols. Tube voltage was 120 kV and tube current differed between protocols. CT data were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and reduced dose CT data with IR. CCS was quantified with Agatston scores, calcification mass and calcification volume. Differences were analysed with the Friedman test. RESULTS: Fourteen hearts showed coronary calcifications. Dose reduction with FBP did not significantly change Agatston scores, calcification volumes and calcification masses (P > 0.05). Maximum differences in Agatston scores were 76, 26, 51 and 161 units, in calcification volume 97, 27, 42 and 162 mm(3), and in calcification mass 23, 23, 20 and 48 mg, respectively. IR resulted in a trend towards lower Agatston scores and calcification volumes with significant differences for one vendor (P < 0.05). Median relative differences between reference FBP and reduced dose IR for Agatston scores remained within 2.0-4.6%, 1.0-5.3%, 1.2-7.7% and 2.6-4.5%, for calcification volumes within 2.4-3.9%, 1.0-5.6%, 1.1-6.4% and 3.7-4.7%, for calcification masses within 1.9-4.1%, 0.9-7.8%, 2.9-4.7% and 2.5-3.9%, respectively. IR resulted in increased, decreased or similar calcification masses. CONCLUSIONS: CCS derived from standard FBP acquisitions was not affected by radiation dose reductions up to 80%. IR resulted in a trend towards lower Agatston scores and calcification volumes. KEY POINTS: In this ex vivo study, radiation dose could be reduced by 80% for coronary calcium scoring. Iterative reconstruction resulted in a trend towards lower Agatston scores and calcification volumes. Caution should be taken for coronary calcium scoring with iterative reconstruction.
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the effects of radiation dose reduction and iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms on coronary calcium scoring (CCS). METHODS: Fifteen ex vivo human hearts were examined in an anthropomorphic chest phantom using computed tomography (CT) systems from four vendors and examined at four dose levels using unenhanced prospectively ECG-triggered protocols. Tube voltage was 120 kV and tube current differed between protocols. CT data were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and reduced dose CT data with IR. CCS was quantified with Agatston scores, calcification mass and calcification volume. Differences were analysed with the Friedman test. RESULTS: Fourteen hearts showed coronary calcifications. Dose reduction with FBP did not significantly change Agatston scores, calcification volumes and calcification masses (P > 0.05). Maximum differences in Agatston scores were 76, 26, 51 and 161 units, in calcification volume 97, 27, 42 and 162 mm(3), and in calcification mass 23, 23, 20 and 48 mg, respectively. IR resulted in a trend towards lower Agatston scores and calcification volumes with significant differences for one vendor (P < 0.05). Median relative differences between reference FBP and reduced dose IR for Agatston scores remained within 2.0-4.6%, 1.0-5.3%, 1.2-7.7% and 2.6-4.5%, for calcification volumes within 2.4-3.9%, 1.0-5.6%, 1.1-6.4% and 3.7-4.7%, for calcification masses within 1.9-4.1%, 0.9-7.8%, 2.9-4.7% and 2.5-3.9%, respectively. IR resulted in increased, decreased or similar calcification masses. CONCLUSIONS: CCS derived from standard FBP acquisitions was not affected by radiation dose reductions up to 80%. IR resulted in a trend towards lower Agatston scores and calcification volumes. KEY POINTS: In this ex vivo study, radiation dose could be reduced by 80% for coronary calcium scoring. Iterative reconstruction resulted in a trend towards lower Agatston scores and calcification volumes. Caution should be taken for coronary calcium scoring with iterative reconstruction.
Authors: Peter C Jacobs; Martijn J A Gondrie; Yolanda van der Graaf; Harry J de Koning; Ivana Isgum; Bram van Ginneken; Willem P T M Mali Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Matthijs Oudkerk; Arthur E Stillman; Sandra S Halliburton; Willi A Kalender; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Cynthia H McCollough; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Leslee J Shaw; William Stanford; Allen J Taylor; Peter M A van Ooijen; Lewis Wexler; Paolo Raggi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-07-24 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Matthew J Budoff; Paul Kessler; Yan L Gao; Wajeh Qunibi; Moustafa Moustafa; Song S Mao Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Robert Detrano; Alan D Guerci; J Jeffrey Carr; Diane E Bild; Gregory Burke; Aaron R Folsom; Kiang Liu; Steven Shea; Moyses Szklo; David A Bluemke; Daniel H O'Leary; Russell Tracy; Karol Watson; Nathan D Wong; Richard A Kronmal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-03-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bálint Szilveszter; Hesham Elzomor; Mihály Károlyi; Márton Kolossváry; Rolf Raaijmakers; Kálmán Benke; Csilla Celeng; Andrea Bartykowszki; Zsolt Bagyura; Árpád Lux; Béla Merkely; Pál Maurovich-Horvat Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: N R van der Werf; P A Rodesch; S Si-Mohamed; R W van Hamersvelt; M J W Greuter; T Leiner; L Boussel; M J Willemink; P Douek Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-01-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mark A Rodrigues; Michelle C Williams; Thomas Fitzgerald; Martin Connell; Nicholas W Weir; David E Newby; Edwin J R van Beek; Saeed Mirsadraee Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Tobias Gassenmaier; Thomas Allmendinger; Andreas S Kunz; Maike Veyhl-Wichmann; Süleyman Ergün; Thorsten A Bley; Bernhard Petritsch Journal: Acta Radiol Open Date: 2017-05-29