Mårten Sandstedt1,2, Jeffrey Marsh3, Kishore Rajendran4, Hao Gong3, Shengzhen Tao3, Anders Persson1,2,5, Shuai Leng3, Cynthia McCollough3. 1. Center for Medical Image Science and Visualization (CMIV), Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. 2. Department of Radiology and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. 3. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. rajendran.kishore@mayo.edu. 5. Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy of coronary calcium quantification of cadaveric specimens imaged from a photon-counting detector (PCD)-CT and an energy-integrating detector (EID)-CT. METHODS: Excised coronary specimens were scanned on a PCD-CT scanner, using both the PCD and EID subsystems. The scanning and reconstruction parameters for EID-CT and PCD-CT were matched: 120 kV, 9.3-9.4 mGy CTDIvol, and a quantitative kernel (D50). PCD-CT images were also reconstructed using a sharper kernel (D60). Scanning the same specimens using micro-CT served as a reference standard for calcified volumes. Calcifications were segmented with a half-maximum thresholding technique. Segmented calcified volume differences were analyzed using the Friedman test and post hoc pairwise Wilcoxon signed rank test with the Bonferroni correction. Image noise measurements were compared between EID-CT and PCD-CT with a repeated-measures ANOVA test and post hoc pairwise comparison with the Bonferroni correction. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The volume measurements in 12/13 calcifications followed a similar trend: EID-D50 > PCD-D50 > PCD-D60 > micro-CT. The median calcified volumes in EID-D50, PCD-D50, PCD-D60, and micro-CT were 22.1 (IQR 10.2-64.8), 21.0 (IQR 9.0-56.5), 18.2 (IQR 8.3-49.3), and 14.6 (IQR 5.1-42.4) mm3, respectively (p < 0.05 for all pairwise comparisons). The average image noise in EID-D50, PCD-D50, and PCD-D60 was 60.4 (± 3.5), 56.0 (± 4.2), and 113.6 (± 8.5) HU, respectively (p < 0.01 for all pairwise comparisons). CONCLUSION: The PCT-CT system quantified coronary calcifications more accurately than EID-CT, and a sharp PCD-CT kernel further improved the accuracy. The PCD-CT images exhibited lower noise than the EID-CT images. KEY POINTS: • High spatial resolution offered by PCD-CT reduces partial volume averaging and consequently leads to better morphological depiction of coronary calcifications. • Improved quantitative accuracy for coronary calcification volumes could be achieved using high-resolution PCD-CT compared to conventional EID-CT. • PCD-CT images exhibit lower image noise than conventional EID-CT at matched radiation dose and reconstruction kernel.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy of coronary calcium quantification of cadaveric specimens imaged from a photon-counting detector (PCD)-CT and an energy-integrating detector (EID)-CT. METHODS: Excised coronary specimens were scanned on a PCD-CT scanner, using both the PCD and EID subsystems. The scanning and reconstruction parameters for EID-CT and PCD-CT were matched: 120 kV, 9.3-9.4 mGy CTDIvol, and a quantitative kernel (D50). PCD-CT images were also reconstructed using a sharper kernel (D60). Scanning the same specimens using micro-CT served as a reference standard for calcified volumes. Calcifications were segmented with a half-maximum thresholding technique. Segmented calcified volume differences were analyzed using the Friedman test and post hoc pairwise Wilcoxon signed rank test with the Bonferroni correction. Image noise measurements were compared between EID-CT and PCD-CT with a repeated-measures ANOVA test and post hoc pairwise comparison with the Bonferroni correction. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The volume measurements in 12/13 calcifications followed a similar trend: EID-D50 > PCD-D50 > PCD-D60 > micro-CT. The median calcified volumes in EID-D50, PCD-D50, PCD-D60, and micro-CT were 22.1 (IQR 10.2-64.8), 21.0 (IQR 9.0-56.5), 18.2 (IQR 8.3-49.3), and 14.6 (IQR 5.1-42.4) mm3, respectively (p < 0.05 for all pairwise comparisons). The average image noise in EID-D50, PCD-D50, and PCD-D60 was 60.4 (± 3.5), 56.0 (± 4.2), and 113.6 (± 8.5) HU, respectively (p < 0.01 for all pairwise comparisons). CONCLUSION: The PCT-CT system quantified coronary calcifications more accurately than EID-CT, and a sharp PCD-CT kernel further improved the accuracy. The PCD-CT images exhibited lower noise than the EID-CT images. KEY POINTS: • High spatial resolution offered by PCD-CT reduces partial volume averaging and consequently leads to better morphological depiction of coronary calcifications. • Improved quantitative accuracy for coronary calcification volumes could be achieved using high-resolution PCD-CT compared to conventional EID-CT. • PCD-CT images exhibit lower image noise than conventional EID-CT at matched radiation dose and reconstruction kernel.
Authors: Stephan D Fihn; Julius M Gardin; Jonathan Abrams; Kathleen Berra; James C Blankenship; Apostolos P Dallas; Pamela S Douglas; Joanne M Foody; Thomas C Gerber; Alan L Hinderliter; Spencer B King; Paul D Kligfield; Harlan M Krumholz; Raymond Y K Kwong; Michael J Lim; Jane A Linderbaum; Michael J Mack; Mark A Munger; Richard L Prager; Joseph F Sabik; Leslee J Shaw; Joanna D Sikkema; Craig R Smith; Sidney C Smith; John A Spertus; Sankey V Williams; Jeffrey L Anderson Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Harvey S Hecht; Paul Cronin; Michael J Blaha; Matthew J Budoff; Ella A Kazerooni; Jagat Narula; David Yankelevitz; Suhny Abbara Journal: J Thorac Imaging Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Juhani Knuuti; William Wijns; Antti Saraste; Davide Capodanno; Emanuele Barbato; Christian Funck-Brentano; Eva Prescott; Robert F Storey; Christi Deaton; Thomas Cuisset; Stefan Agewall; Kenneth Dickstein; Thor Edvardsen; Javier Escaned; Bernard J Gersh; Pavel Svitil; Martine Gilard; David Hasdai; Robert Hatala; Felix Mahfoud; Josep Masip; Claudio Muneretto; Marco Valgimigli; Stephan Achenbach; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Philip Greenland; Michael J Blaha; Matthew J Budoff; Raimund Erbel; Karol E Watson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: G Sangiorgi; J A Rumberger; A Severson; W D Edwards; J Gregoire; L A Fitzpatrick; R S Schwartz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: David C Goff; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Glen Bennett; Sean Coady; Ralph B D'Agostino; Raymond Gibbons; Philip Greenland; Daniel T Lackland; Daniel Levy; Christopher J O'Donnell; Jennifer G Robinson; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Paul Sorlie; Neil J Stone; Peter W F Wilson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 24.094
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: T Lourenco; N Armstrong; J N'Dow; G Nabi; M Deverill; R Pickard; L Vale; G MacLennan; C Fraser; S McClinton; S Wong; A Coutts; G Mowatt; A Grant Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.014
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: Niels R van der Werf; Ronald Booij; Marcel J W Greuter; Daniel Bos; A van der Lugt; R P J Budde; Marcel van Straten Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: David C Rotzinger; Damien Racine; Fabio Becce; Elias Lahoud; Klaus Erhard; Salim A Si-Mohamed; Joël Greffier; Anaïs Viry; Loïc Boussel; Reto A Meuli; Yoad Yagil; Pascal Monnin; Philippe C Douek Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-12-16
Authors: Victor Mergen; Thomas Sartoretti; Ernst Klotz; Bernhard Schmidt; Lisa Jungblut; Kai Higashigaito; Robert Manka; André Euler; Markus Kasel; Matthias Eberhard; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 10.065