Martin J Willemink1, Bronislaw Abramiuc2, Annemarie M den Harder3, Niels R van der Werf2, Pim A de Jong3, Ricardo P J Budde4, Joachim E Wildberger5, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart6, Tineke P Willems2, Marcel J W Greuter2, Tim Leiner3. 1. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, E01.132, Utrecht 3508 GA, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.willemink@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, E01.132, Utrecht 3508 GA, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, E01.132, Utrecht 3508 GA, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; Center for Medical Imaging North East Netherlands, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of chest size on coronary calcium score (CCS) as assessed with new-generation CT systems from 4 major vendors. METHODS: An anthropomorphic, small-sized (300 × 200 mm) chest phantom containing 100 small calcifications (diameters, 0.5-2.0 mm) was evaluated with and without an extension ring on state-of-the-art CT systems from 4 vendors. The extension ring was used to mimic a patient with a large chest size (400 × 300 mm). Image acquisition was repeated 5 times with small translations and/or rotations. Routine clinical acquisition and reconstruction protocols for small and large patients were used. CCS was quantified as Agatston and mass scores with vendor software. RESULTS: The small-sized phantom resulted in median (interquartiles) Agatston scores of 10 (9-35), 136 (123-146), 34 (30-37), and 87 (85-89) for Philips, GE, Siemens, and Toshiba, respectively. Mass scores were 4 mg (3-9 mg), 23 mg (21-27 mg), 8 mg (8-9 mg), and 20 mg (20-20 mg), respectively. Adding the extension ring resulted in reduced Agatston scores for all vendors (17%-48%) and mass scores for 2 vendors (11%-49%). Median Agatston scores decreased to 9 (5-10), 79 (60-80), 27 (24-32), and 45 (29-53) units, and median mass scores remained similar for Philips at 4 mg (4-6 mg) and Siemens at 8 mg (7-8 mg) and decreased for the other vendors to 13 mg (11-14 mg) and 10 mg (8-13 mg), respectively. CONCLUSION: This multivendor phantom study showed that CCS can be underestimated up to 50% (49%-66%) for Agatston scores and 49% (36%-59%) for mass scores at a larger chest size, which may be relevant for women and large patients. However, CCS underestimation by chest size differs considerably by vendor.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of chest size on coronary calcium score (CCS) as assessed with new-generation CT systems from 4 major vendors. METHODS: An anthropomorphic, small-sized (300 × 200 mm) chest phantom containing 100 small calcifications (diameters, 0.5-2.0 mm) was evaluated with and without an extension ring on state-of-the-art CT systems from 4 vendors. The extension ring was used to mimic a patient with a large chest size (400 × 300 mm). Image acquisition was repeated 5 times with small translations and/or rotations. Routine clinical acquisition and reconstruction protocols for small and large patients were used. CCS was quantified as Agatston and mass scores with vendor software. RESULTS: The small-sized phantom resulted in median (interquartiles) Agatston scores of 10 (9-35), 136 (123-146), 34 (30-37), and 87 (85-89) for Philips, GE, Siemens, and Toshiba, respectively. Mass scores were 4 mg (3-9 mg), 23 mg (21-27 mg), 8 mg (8-9 mg), and 20 mg (20-20 mg), respectively. Adding the extension ring resulted in reduced Agatston scores for all vendors (17%-48%) and mass scores for 2 vendors (11%-49%). Median Agatston scores decreased to 9 (5-10), 79 (60-80), 27 (24-32), and 45 (29-53) units, and median mass scores remained similar for Philips at 4 mg (4-6 mg) and Siemens at 8 mg (7-8 mg) and decreased for the other vendors to 13 mg (11-14 mg) and 10 mg (8-13 mg), respectively. CONCLUSION: This multivendor phantom study showed that CCS can be underestimated up to 50% (49%-66%) for Agatston scores and 49% (36%-59%) for mass scores at a larger chest size, which may be relevant for women and large patients. However, CCS underestimation by chest size differs considerably by vendor.
Authors: Niels R van der Werf; Marcel J W Greuter; Ronald Booij; Aad van der Lugt; Ricardo P J Budde; Marcel van Straten Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Niels R van der Werf; Margo van Gent; Ronald Booij; Daniel Bos; Aad van der Lugt; Ricardo P J Budde; Marcel J W Greuter; Marcel van Straten Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-11-25
Authors: Niels R van der Werf; Ronald Booij; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas G Flohr; Tim Leiner; Joël J de Groen; Daniël Bos; Ricardo P J Budde; Martin J Willemink; Marcel J W Greuter Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 5.315