Konrad Pieszko1,2, Aakash D Shanbhag1, Mark Lemley1, Mark Hyun1, Serge Van Kriekinge1, Yuka Otaki1, Joanna X Liang1, Daniel S Berman1, Damini Dey1, Piotr J Slomka3. 1. Departments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Suite Metro 203, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA. 2. Department of Interventional Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, Collegium Medicum, University of Zielona Gora, Zielona Gora, Poland. 3. Departments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Suite Metro 203, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA. Piotr.Slomka@cshs.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate inter-scan and inter-reader agreement of coronary calcium (CAC) scores obtained from dedicated, ECG-gated CAC scans (standard CAC scan) and ultra-low-dose, ungated computed tomography attenuation correction (CTAC) scans obtained routinely during cardiac PET/CT imaging. METHODS: From 2928 consecutive patients who underwent same-day 82Rb cardiac PET/CT and gated CAC scan in the same hybrid PET/CT scanning session, we have randomly selected 200 cases with no history of revascularization. Standard CAC scans and ungated CTAC scans were scored by two readers using quantitative clinical software. We assessed the agreement between readers and between two scan protocols in 5 CAC categories (0, 1-10, 11-100, 101-400, and > 400) using Cohen's Kappa and concordance. RESULTS: Median age of patients was 70 (inter-quartile range: 63-77), and 46% were male. The inter-scan concordance index and Cohen's Kappa for readers 1 and 2 were 0.69; 0.75 (0.69, 0.81) and 0.72; 0.8 (0.75, 0.85) respectively. The inter-reader concordance index and Cohen's Kappa (95% confidence interval [CI]) was higher for standard CAC scans: 0.9 and 0.92 (0.89, 0.96), respectively, vs. for CTAC scans: 0.83 and 0.85 (0.79, 0.9) for CTAC scans (p = 0.02 for difference in Kappa). Most discordant readings between two protocols occurred for scans with low extent of calcification (CAC score < 100). CONCLUSION: CAC can be quantitatively assessed on PET CTAC maps with good agreement with standard scans, however with limited sensitivity for small lesions. CAC scoring of CTAC can be performed routinely without modification of PET protocol and added radiation dose.
PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate inter-scan and inter-reader agreement of coronary calcium (CAC) scores obtained from dedicated, ECG-gated CAC scans (standard CAC scan) and ultra-low-dose, ungated computed tomography attenuation correction (CTAC) scans obtained routinely during cardiac PET/CT imaging. METHODS: From 2928 consecutive patients who underwent same-day 82Rb cardiac PET/CT and gated CAC scan in the same hybrid PET/CT scanning session, we have randomly selected 200 cases with no history of revascularization. Standard CAC scans and ungated CTAC scans were scored by two readers using quantitative clinical software. We assessed the agreement between readers and between two scan protocols in 5 CAC categories (0, 1-10, 11-100, 101-400, and > 400) using Cohen's Kappa and concordance. RESULTS: Median age of patients was 70 (inter-quartile range: 63-77), and 46% were male. The inter-scan concordance index and Cohen's Kappa for readers 1 and 2 were 0.69; 0.75 (0.69, 0.81) and 0.72; 0.8 (0.75, 0.85) respectively. The inter-reader concordance index and Cohen's Kappa (95% confidence interval [CI]) was higher for standard CAC scans: 0.9 and 0.92 (0.89, 0.96), respectively, vs. for CTAC scans: 0.83 and 0.85 (0.79, 0.9) for CTAC scans (p = 0.02 for difference in Kappa). Most discordant readings between two protocols occurred for scans with low extent of calcification (CAC score < 100). CONCLUSION: CAC can be quantitatively assessed on PET CTAC maps with good agreement with standard scans, however with limited sensitivity for small lesions. CAC scoring of CTAC can be performed routinely without modification of PET protocol and added radiation dose.
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: Krishna Alluri; Parag H Joshi; Travis S Henry; Roger S Blumenthal; Khurram Nasir; Michael J Blaha Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2015-01-02 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Caroline Chiles; Fenghai Duan; Gregory W Gladish; James G Ravenel; Scott G Baginski; Bradley S Snyder; Sarah DeMello; Stephanie S Desjardins; Reginald F Munden Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-03-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; Khurram Nasir; Gregory L Kinney; John E Hokanson; R Graham Barr; Robert Steiner; Hrudaya Nath; Carmen Lopez-Garcia; Jennifer Black-Shinn; Richard Casaburi Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2010-11-22
Authors: Elsemiek M Engbers; Jorik R Timmer; Mohamed Mouden; Siert Knollema; Pieter L Jager; Jan Paul Ottervanger Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Masanao Naya; Venkatesh L Murthy; Courtney R Foster; Mariya Gaber; Josh Klein; Jon Hainer; Sharmila Dorbala; Ron Blankstein; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mouaz H Al-Mallah; Timothy M Bateman; Kelley R Branch; Andrew Crean; Eric L Gingold; Randall C Thompson; Sarah E McKenney; Edward J Miller; Venkatesh L Murthy; Koen Nieman; Todd C Villines; Michael V Yester; Andrew J Einstein; John J Mahmarian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 3.872