Hediyeh Baradaran1, Tyrel Foster2, Paul Harrie2, J Scott McNally2, Matthew Alexander2, Ankur Pandya3, Yoshimi Anzai2, Ajay Gupta4,5. 1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, 30 N 1900 E #1A141, Salt Lake City, UT, 84135, USA. hediyeh.baradaran@hsc.utah.edu. 2. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, 30 N 1900 E #1A141, Salt Lake City, UT, 84135, USA. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 5. Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Extracranial ICA imaging has largely focused on the degree of luminal stenosis, but recent advances suggest specific plaque features are crucial in stroke risk assessment. We evaluated the current state of reporting carotid plaque features on neck CTAs at an academic institution. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we included neck CTAs performed on patients over age 50 with any reported carotid plaque. We evaluated reports for mention of the following: degree of luminal stenosis, soft plaque, calcified plaque, plaque thickness, quantification of soft and calcified plaque, plaque ulceration, and increased risk associated with specific features. We used Fisher's exact test to compare how often each feature was mentioned. RESULTS: We included a total of 651 reports from unique patients (mean age, 68.1 ± 13.3 years). A total of 639 reports (98.1%) explicitly mentioned degree of stenosis per NASCET criteria. Specific plaque features were less frequently characterized: soft plaque in 116 (17.8%); calcified plaque in 166 (25.5%); quantification of the amount of soft plaque and calcified plaque in 24 (3.7%) and 16 (2.5%) reports, respectively; plaque thickness in 12 (1.8%); plaque ulceration in 476 (73.1%); and increased risk associated with plaque in 2 (0.3%). Degree of stenosis was statistically more likely to be mentioned than any other plaque feature (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Currently, nearly all reports mention the degree of luminal stenosis on neck CTAs while a significant minority mention specific plaque features. Despite mounting evidence of the importance of carotid plaque features in stroke risk assessment, radiology reports do not routinely report these findings.
PURPOSE: Extracranial ICA imaging has largely focused on the degree of luminal stenosis, but recent advances suggest specific plaque features are crucial in stroke risk assessment. We evaluated the current state of reporting carotid plaque features on neck CTAs at an academic institution. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we included neck CTAs performed on patients over age 50 with any reported carotid plaque. We evaluated reports for mention of the following: degree of luminal stenosis, soft plaque, calcified plaque, plaque thickness, quantification of soft and calcified plaque, plaque ulceration, and increased risk associated with specific features. We used Fisher's exact test to compare how often each feature was mentioned. RESULTS: We included a total of 651 reports from unique patients (mean age, 68.1 ± 13.3 years). A total of 639 reports (98.1%) explicitly mentioned degree of stenosis per NASCET criteria. Specific plaque features were less frequently characterized: soft plaque in 116 (17.8%); calcified plaque in 166 (25.5%); quantification of the amount of soft plaque and calcified plaque in 24 (3.7%) and 16 (2.5%) reports, respectively; plaque thickness in 12 (1.8%); plaque ulceration in 476 (73.1%); and increased risk associated with plaque in 2 (0.3%). Degree of stenosis was statistically more likely to be mentioned than any other plaque feature (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Currently, nearly all reports mention the degree of luminal stenosis on neck CTAs while a significant minority mention specific plaque features. Despite mounting evidence of the importance of carotid plaque features in stroke risk assessment, radiology reports do not routinely report these findings.
Authors: M Trelles; K M Eberhardt; M Buchholz; A Schindler; A Bayer-Karpinska; M Dichgans; M F Reiser; K Nikolaou; T Saam Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J Scott McNally; Hyo-Chun Yoon; Seong-Eun Kim; Krishna K Narra; Michael S McLaughlin; Dennis L Parker; Gerald S Treiman Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Thomas T de Weert; Mohamed Ouhlous; Erik Meijering; Pieter E Zondervan; Johanna M Hendriks; Marc R H M van Sambeek; Diederik W J Dippel; Aad van der Lugt Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2006-08-10 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: H Baradaran; K Al-Dasuqi; A Knight-Greenfield; A Giambrone; D Delgado; E J Ebani; H Kamel; A Gupta Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: L Saba; M Francone; P P Bassareo; L Lai; R Sanfilippo; R Montisci; J S Suri; C N De Cecco; G Faa Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J C Benson; V Nardi; A A Madhavan; M C Bois; L Saba; L Savastano; A Lerman; G Lanzino Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 3.825