Caroline Chiles1, Fenghai Duan1, Gregory W Gladish1, James G Ravenel1, Scott G Baginski1, Bradley S Snyder1, Sarah DeMello1, Stephanie S Desjardins1, Reginald F Munden1. 1. From the Department of Radiology, Wake Forest University Health Sciences Center, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157 (C.C.); Department of Biostatistics and Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI (F.D., B.S.S., S.D.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex (G.W.G.); Department of Radiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC (J.G.R.); Summit Radiology LLC, Oconomowoc, Wis (S.G.B.); American College of Radiology Imaging Network, Philadelphia, Pa (S.S.D.); and Department of Radiology, Houston Methodist Hospital and Research Institute, Houston, Tex (R.F.M.).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate three coronary artery calcification (CAC) scoring methods to assess risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) death and all-cause mortality in National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants across levels of CAC scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The NLST was approved by the institutional review board at each participating institution, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Image review was HIPAA compliant. Five cardiothoracic radiologists evaluated 1575 low-dose computed tomographic (CT) scansfrom three groups: 210 CHD deaths, 315 deaths not from CHD, and 1050 participants who were alive at conclusion of the trial. Radiologists used three scoring methods: overall visual assessment, segmented vessel-specific scoring, and Agatston scoring. Weighted Cox proportional hazards models were fit to evaluate the association between scoring methods and outcomes. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis of time to CHD death, Agatston scores of 1-100, 101-1000, and greater than 1000 (reference category 0) were associated with hazard ratios of 1.27 (95% confidence interval: 0.69, 2.53), 3.57 (95% confidence interval: 2.14, 7.48), and 6.63 (95% confidence interval: 3.57, 14.97), respectively; hazard ratios for summed segmented vessel-specific scores of 1-5, 6-11, and 12-30 (reference category 0) were 1.72 (95% confidence interval: 1.05, 3.34), 5.11 (95% confidence interval: 2.92, 10.94), and 6.10 (95% confidence interval: 3.19, 14.05), respectively; and hazard ratios for overall visual assessment of mild, moderate, or heavy (reference category none) were 2.09 (95% confidence interval: 1.30, 4.16), 3.86 (95% confidence interval: 2.02, 8.20), and 6.95 (95% confidence interval: 3.73, 15.67), respectively. CONCLUSION: By using low-dose CT performed for lung cancer screening in older, heavy smokers, a simple visual assessment of CAC can be generated for risk assessment of CHD death and all-cause mortality, which is comparable to Agatston scoring and strongly associated with outcome.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate three coronary artery calcification (CAC) scoring methods to assess risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) death and all-cause mortality in National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants across levels of CAC scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The NLST was approved by the institutional review board at each participating institution, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Image review was HIPAA compliant. Five cardiothoracic radiologists evaluated 1575 low-dose computed tomographic (CT) scans from three groups: 210 CHD deaths, 315 deaths not from CHD, and 1050 participants who were alive at conclusion of the trial. Radiologists used three scoring methods: overall visual assessment, segmented vessel-specific scoring, and Agatston scoring. Weighted Cox proportional hazards models were fit to evaluate the association between scoring methods and outcomes. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis of time to CHD death, Agatston scores of 1-100, 101-1000, and greater than 1000 (reference category 0) were associated with hazard ratios of 1.27 (95% confidence interval: 0.69, 2.53), 3.57 (95% confidence interval: 2.14, 7.48), and 6.63 (95% confidence interval: 3.57, 14.97), respectively; hazard ratios for summed segmented vessel-specific scores of 1-5, 6-11, and 12-30 (reference category 0) were 1.72 (95% confidence interval: 1.05, 3.34), 5.11 (95% confidence interval: 2.92, 10.94), and 6.10 (95% confidence interval: 3.19, 14.05), respectively; and hazard ratios for overall visual assessment of mild, moderate, or heavy (reference category none) were 2.09 (95% confidence interval: 1.30, 4.16), 3.86 (95% confidence interval: 2.02, 8.20), and 6.95 (95% confidence interval: 3.73, 15.67), respectively. CONCLUSION: By using low-dose CT performed for lung cancer screening in older, heavy smokers, a simple visual assessment of CAC can be generated for risk assessment of CHD death and all-cause mortality, which is comparable to Agatston scoring and strongly associated with outcome.
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: J C M van de Wiel; Y Wang; D M Xu; H J van der Zaag-Loonen; E J van der Jagt; R J van Klaveren; M Oudkerk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-01-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michael J Kucharczyk; Ravi J Menezes; Alexander McGregor; Narinder S Paul; Heidi C Roberts Journal: Can Assoc Radiol J Date: 2010-04-10 Impact factor: 2.248
Authors: Andrew J Einstein; Lynne L Johnson; Sabahat Bokhari; Jessica Son; Randall C Thompson; Timothy M Bateman; Sean W Hayes; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; Jonathan D Clapp; Kathy L Clingan; Ilana F Gareen; David A Lynch; Pamela M Marcus; Paul F Pinsky Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-11-22 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Onno M Mets; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Martijn J Gondrie; Max A Viergever; Matthijs Oudkerk; Harry J de Koning; Willem P Th M Mali; Mathias Prokop; Rob J van Klaveren; Yolanda van der Graaf; Constantinus F M Buckens; Pieter Zanen; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Harry J M Groen; Ivana Isgum; Pim A de Jong Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-06-13
Authors: Jurica Šprem; Bob D de Vos; Nikolas Lessmann; Pim A de Jong; Max A Viergever; Ivana Išgum Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-12-11
Authors: Wassim W Labaki; Carlos H Martinez; Fernando J Martinez; Craig J Galbán; Brian D Ross; George R Washko; R Graham Barr; Elizabeth A Regan; Harvey O Coxson; Eric A Hoffman; John D Newell; Douglas Curran-Everett; James C Hogg; James D Crapo; David A Lynch; Ella A Kazerooni; MeiLan K Han Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Leon Lenchik; Ryan Barnard; Robert D Boutin; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Haiying Chen; Josh Tan; Peggy M Cawthon; Ashley A Weaver; Fang-Chi Hsu Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Dustin Hillerson; Thomas Wool; Gbolahan O Ogunbayo; Vincent L Sorrell; Steve W Leung Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jacobo Kirsch; Felipe Martinez; David Lopez; Gian M Novaro; Craig R Asher Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Adam Leigh; John W McEvoy; Parveen Garg; J Jeffrey Carr; Veit Sandfort; Elizabeth C Oelsner; Matthew Budoff; David Herrington; Joseph Yeboah Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-02-14