PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-based in vitro and in vivo coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS) using a novel virtual noniodine reconstruction (PureCalcium) on a clinical first-generation photon-counting detector–computed tomography system compared with virtual noncontrast (VNC) reconstructions and true noncontrast (TNC) acquisitions.Materials and MethodsAlthough CACS and CCTA are well-established techniques for the assessment of coronary artery disease, they are complementary acquisitions, translating into increased scan time and patient radiation dose. Hence, accurate CACS derived from a single CCTA acquisition would be highly desirable. In this study, CACS based on PureCalcium, VNC, and TNC, reconstructions was evaluated in a CACS phantom and in 67 patients (70 [59/80] years, 58.2% male) undergoing CCTA on a first-generation photon counting detector–computed tomography system. Coronary artery calcium scores were quantified for the 3 reconstructions and compared using Wilcoxon test. Agreement was evaluated by Pearson and Spearman correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. Classification of coronary artery calcium score categories (0, 1–10, 11–100, 101–400, and >400) was compared using Cohen κ.ResultsPhantom studies demonstrated strong agreement between CACSPureCalcium and CACSTNC (60.7 ± 90.6 vs 67.3 ± 88.3, P = 0.01, r = 0.98, intraclass correlation [ICC] = 0.98; mean bias, 6.6; limits of agreement [LoA], −39.8/26.6), whereas CACSVNC showed a significant underestimation (42.4 ± 75.3 vs 67.3 ± 88.3, P < 0.001, r = 0.94, ICC = 0.89; mean bias, 24.9; LoA, −87.1/37.2). In vivo comparison confirmed a high correlation but revealed an underestimation of CACSPureCalcium (169.3 [0.7/969.4] vs 232.2 [26.5/1112.2], P < 0.001, r = 0.97, ICC = 0.98; mean bias, −113.5; LoA, −470.2/243.2). In comparison, CACSVNC showed a similarly high correlation, but a substantially larger underestimation (24.3 [0/272.3] vs 232.2 [26.5/1112.2], P < 0.001, r = 0.97, ICC = 0.54; mean bias, −551.6; LoA, −2037.5/934.4). CACSPureCalcium showed superior agreement of CACS classification (κ = 0.88) than CACSVNC (κ = 0.60).ConclusionsThe accuracy of CACS quantification and classification based on PureCalcium reconstructions of CCTA outperforms CACS derived from VNC reconstructions.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate virtual-non contrast reconstructions of Photon-Counting Detector (PCD) CT-angiography datasets using a novel calcium-preserving algorithm (VNCPC) vs. the standard algorithm (VNCConv) for their potential to replace unenhanced acquisitions (TNC) in patients after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). 20 EVAR patients who had undergone CTA (unenhanced and arterial phase) on a novel PCD-CT were included. VNCConv- and VNCPC-series were derived from CTA-datasets and intraluminal signal and noise compared. Three readers evaluated image quality, contrast removal, and removal of calcifications/stent parts and assessed all VNC-series for their suitability to replace TNC-series. Image noise was higher in VNC- than in TNC-series (18.6 ± 5.3 HU, 16.7 ± 7.1 HU, and 14.9 ± 7.1 HU for VNCConv-, VNCPC-, and TNC-series, p = 0.006). Subjective image quality was substantially higher in VNCPC- than VNCConv-series (4.2 ± 0.9 vs. 2.5 ± 0.6; p < 0.001). Aortic contrast removal was complete in all VNC-series. Unlike in VNCConv-reconstructions, only minuscule parts of stents or calcifications were erroneously subtracted in VNCPC-reconstructions. Readers considered 95% of VNCPC-series fully or mostly suited to replace TNC-series; for VNCConv-reconstructions, however, only 75% were considered mostly (and none fully) suited for TNC-replacement. VNCPC-reconstructions of PCD-CT-angiography datasets have excellent image quality with complete contrast removal and only minimal erroneous subtractions of stent parts/calcifications. They could replace TNC-series in almost all cases.
In dual-energy CT datasets, the conspicuity of liver metastases can be enhanced by virtual monoenergetic imaging (VMI) reconstructions at low keV levels. Our study investigated whether this effect can be reproduced in photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) datasets. We analyzed 100 patients with liver metastases who had undergone contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen on a PCD-CT (n = 50) or energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT, single-energy mode, n = 50). PCD-VMI-reconstructions were performed at various keV levels. Identical regions of interest were positioned in metastases, normal liver, and other defined locations assessing image noise, tumor-to-liver ratio (TLR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Patients were compared inter-individually. Subgroup analyses were performed according to BMI. On the PCD-CT, noise and CNR peaked at the low end of the keV spectrum. In comparison with the EID-CT, PCD-VMI-reconstructions exhibited lower image noise (at 70 keV) but higher CNR (for ≤70 keV), despite similar CTDIs. Comparing high- and low-BMI patients, CTDI-upregulation was more modest for the PCD-CT but still resulted in similar noise levels and preserved CNR, unlike the EID-CT. In conclusion, PCD-CT VMIs in oncologic patients demonstrated reduced image noise–compared to a standard EID-CT–and improved conspicuity of hypovascularized liver metastases at low keV values. Patients with higher BMIs especially benefited from constant image noise and preservation of lesion conspicuity, despite a more moderate upregulation of CTDI.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.