Central Core Laboratory versus Site Interpretation of Coronary CT Angiography: Agreement and Association with Cardiovascular Events in the PROMISE Trial

Abstract

Purpose To assess concordance and relative prognostic utility between central core laboratory and local site interpretation for significant coronary artery disease (CAD) and cardiovascular events. Materials and Methods In the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) trial, readers at 193 North American sites interpreted coronary computed tomographic (CT) angiography as part of the clinical evaluation of stable chest pain. Readers at a central core laboratory also interpreted CT angiography blinded to clinical data, site interpretation, and outcomes. Significant CAD was defined as stenosis greater than or equal to 50%; cardiovascular events were defined as a composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Results In 4347 patients (51.8% women; mean age ± standard deviation, 60.4 years ± 8.2), core laboratory and site interpretations were discordant in 16% (683 of 4347), most commonly because of a finding of significant CAD by site but not by core laboratory interpretation (80%, 544 of 683). Overall, core laboratory interpretation resulted in 41% fewer patients being reported as having significant CAD (14%, 595 of 4347 vs 23%, 1000 of 4347; P < .001). Over a median follow-up period of 25 months, 1.3% (57 of 4347) sustained myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death. The C statistic for future myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death was 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54, 0.68) for the core laboratory and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.56, 0.70) for the sites. Conclusion Compared with interpretation by readers at 193 North American sites, standardized core laboratory interpretation classified 41% fewer patients as having significant CAD. RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article. Clinical trial registration no. NCT01174550.

CT ​Evaluation ​by ​Artificial ​Intelligence ​for ​Atherosclerosis, Stenosis and Vascular ​Morphology ​(CLARIFY): ​A ​Multi-center, international study

“…level II readers. 24 Use of this novel rapid AI-enabled approach may aid in significantly improving the use and performance of CCTA by local clinical readers to better implement international guidelines. 6,25 CAD-RADS Assessment by AI.…”

Task-dependent estimability index to assess the quality of cardiac computed tomography angiography for quantifying coronary stenosis

“…This challenge is evident in several multicenter clinical trials in terms of low per-patient and per-vessel specificity, inability to delineate significant stenosis, and a nontrivial percentage of nondiagnostic scans. 4,[7][8][9][10] These shortcomings are most pronounced clinically in patient cohorts with high calcium burden and high resting or labile heart rates. 4,6 Much progress has been made in the last two decades in CTA to overcome these problems and provide a more precise and effective diagnostic scan.…”

Discordances between predicted and actual risk in obese patients with suspected cardiac ischaemia

“…All of the diagnostic studies were interpreted locally at the site of patient enrolment. There are potentially important differences between site and core lab interpretations of imaging studies 27. The lack of core laboratory verification of test results in this analysis has implications for the assessment of accuracy of the different testing modalities but does not affect the relationship between BMI and clinical outcomes.…”