Reproducibility of quantitative coronary calcium scoring from PET/CT attenuation maps: comparison to ECG-gated CT scans

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....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging 2022-10, Vol.49 (12), p.4122-4132
Hauptverfasser: Pieszko, Konrad, Shanbhag, Aakash D., Lemley, Mark, Hyun, Mark, Van Kriekinge, Serge, Otaki, Yuka, Liang, Joanna X., Berman, Daniel S., Dey, Damini, Slomka, Piotr J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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 82 Rb 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 
ISSN:1619-7070
1619-7089
DOI:10.1007/s00259-022-05866-x