Fatemeh Homayounieh1, Pingkun Yan2, Subba R Digumarthy3, Uwe Kruger2, Ge Wang2, Mannudeep K Kalra3. 1. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 75 Blossom Court, Room 248, Boston, MA 02114. Electronic address: fhomayounieh@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Tory, New York. 3. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 75 Blossom Court, Room 248, Boston, MA 02114.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess relationship between single-click, whole heart radiomics from low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening with coronary artery calcification and stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board-approved, retrospective study included all 106 patients (68 men, 38 women, mean age 64 ± 7 years) who underwent both LDCT for lung cancer screening and had calcium scoring and coronary computed tomography angiography in our institution. We recorded the clinical variables including patients' demographics, smoking history, family history, and lipid profiles. Coronary calcium scores and grading of coronary stenosis were recorded from the radiology information system. We calculated the multiethnic scores for atherosclerosis risk scores to obtain 10-year coronary heart disease (MESA 10-Y CHD) risk of cardiovascular disease for all patients. Deidentified LDCT exams were exported to a Radiomics prototype for automatic heart segmentation, and derivation of radiomics. Data were analyzed using multiple logistic regression and kernel Fisher discriminant analyses. RESULTS: Whole heart radiomics were better than the clinical variables for differentiating subjects with different Agatston scores (≤400 and >400) (area under the curve [AUC] 0.92 vs 0.69). Prediction of coronary stenosis and MESA 10-Y CHD risk was better on whole heart radiomics (AUC:0.86-0.87) than with clinical variables (AUC:0.69-0.79). Addition of clinical variables or visual assessment of coronary calcification from LDCT to whole heart radiomics resulted in a modest change in the AUC. CONCLUSION: Single-click, whole heart radiomics obtained from LDCT for lung cancer screening can differentiate patients with different Agatston and MESA risk scores for cardiovascular diseases.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess relationship between single-click, whole heart radiomics from low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening with coronary artery calcification and stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board-approved, retrospective study included all 106 patients (68 men, 38 women, mean age 64 ± 7 years) who underwent both LDCT for lung cancer screening and had calcium scoring and coronary computed tomography angiography in our institution. We recorded the clinical variables including patients' demographics, smoking history, family history, and lipid profiles. Coronary calcium scores and grading of coronary stenosis were recorded from the radiology information system. We calculated the multiethnic scores for atherosclerosis risk scores to obtain 10-year coronary heart disease (MESA 10-Y CHD) risk of cardiovascular disease for all patients. Deidentified LDCT exams were exported to a Radiomics prototype for automatic heart segmentation, and derivation of radiomics. Data were analyzed using multiple logistic regression and kernel Fisher discriminant analyses. RESULTS: Whole heart radiomics were better than the clinical variables for differentiating subjects with different Agatston scores (≤400 and >400) (area under the curve [AUC] 0.92 vs 0.69). Prediction of coronary stenosis and MESA 10-Y CHD risk was better on whole heart radiomics (AUC:0.86-0.87) than with clinical variables (AUC:0.69-0.79). Addition of clinical variables or visual assessment of coronary calcification from LDCT to whole heart radiomics resulted in a modest change in the AUC. CONCLUSION: Single-click, whole heart radiomics obtained from LDCT for lung cancer screening can differentiate patients with different Agatston and MESA risk scores for cardiovascular diseases.
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: 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: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nils Lehmann; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Amir A Mahabadi; Axel Schmermund; Ulla Roggenbuck; Rainer Seibel; Dietrich Grönemeyer; Thomas Budde; Nico Dragano; Andreas Stang; Klaus Mann; Susanne Moebus; Raimund Erbel; Karl-Heinz Jöckel Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Nils Lehmann; Raimund Erbel; Amir A Mahabadi; Michael Rauwolf; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Susanne Moebus; Hagen Kälsch; Thomas Budde; Axel Schmermund; Andreas Stang; Dagmar Führer-Sakel; Christian Weimar; Ulla Roggenbuck; Nico Dragano; Karl-Heinz Jöckel Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Remy Klaassen; Ruben T H M Larue; Banafsche Mearadji; Stephanie O van der Woude; Jaap Stoker; Philippe Lambin; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Márton Kolossváry; Júlia Karády; Yasuka Kikuchi; Alexander Ivanov; Christopher L Schlett; Michael T Lu; Borek Foldyna; Béla Merkely; Hugo J Aerts; Udo Hoffmann; Pál Maurovich-Horvat Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 11.105