Impact of Image Reconstruction Parameters on Abdominal Aortic Calcification Measurement Using Abdominal Computed Tomography

被引:1
作者
Abdelganne, Layal [1 ]
Song, Fiona [1 ]
Oliver, Joseph [1 ]
Galea, Michael [1 ]
Chen, Xiao [1 ]
McGill, Jeannette [1 ,2 ]
Spelman, Tim [2 ,3 ]
Lim, Ruth P. [1 ,4 ]
Kutaiba, Numan [1 ]
机构
[1] Austin Hlth, Radiol Dept, 145 Studley Rd, Melbourne, Vic 3084, Australia
[2] Karolinska Inst, Stockholm, Sweden
[3] Burnet Inst, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[4] Univ Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
关键词
abdominal aorta; aortic calcification; computed tomography; atherosclerosis; reconstruction parameters; INCIDENTAL FINDINGS; CT;
D O I
10.1097/RCT.0000000000001226
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background and Aims Abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) is correlated with cardiovascular outcomes independent of traditional risk factors. Quantification of AAC on computed tomography (CT) has not been standardized. Reconstruction parameters have been shown to impact coronary calcium scores. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of abdominal CT reconstruction parameters, slice thickness (ST), and display field of view (DFOV) on AAC quantitative scoring on abdominal CT examinations. Methods We retrospectively measured AAC on noncontrast CT of 46 patients (mean age, 64.1 years; 35 males) using 5 different reconstruction protocols with a range of ST and DFOV: protocol A, 2.5 mm ST, 35 cm DFOV; protocol B, 2.5 mm ST, 50 cm DFOV; protocol C, 2.5 mm ST, 25 cm DFOV; protocol D, 5 mm ST, 35 cm DFOV; and protocol E: 0.625 mm ST, 35 cm DFOV. The AAC scores from each protocol were compared using concordance correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman agreement analyses. Results The AAC mean (SD) scores for each protocol were as follows: A, 2022 (2418); B, 2022 (2412); C, 1939 (2310); D, 2220 (2695); and E, 1862 (2234). The AAC mean score differences between protocols and reference protocol A were -0.47, 82.01, -198.94, and 160 for protocols B, C, D, and E, respectively, with differences between protocols C to E statistically significantly different (P < 0.05). The different protocols showed overall excellent correlation (concordance correlation coefficient, >0.9) between AAC scores. Conclusions Slice thickness and DFOV can impact AAC score measurement. A description of reconstruction parameters is important to allow comparisons across different cohorts.
引用
收藏
页码:849 / 855
页数:7
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] QUANTIFICATION OF CORONARY-ARTERY CALCIUM USING ULTRAFAST COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY
    AGATSTON, AS
    JANOWITZ, WR
    HILDNER, FJ
    ZUSMER, NR
    VIAMONTE, M
    DETRANO, R
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 1990, 15 (04) : 827 - 832
  • [2] Altman D.G., 1991, PRACTICAL STAT MED R, V1st, P403, DOI [DOI 10.1002/SIM.4780101015, 10.1002/sim.4780101015]
  • [3] CT-based abdominal aortic calcification score as a surrogate marker for predicting the presence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease
    An, Chansik
    Lee, Hye-Jeong
    Lee, Hye Sun
    Ahn, Sung Soo
    Choi, Byoung Wook
    Kim, Myeong-Jin
    Chung, Yong Eun
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2014, 24 (10) : 2491 - 2498
  • [4] Managing Incidental Findings on Abdominal CT: White Paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee
    Berland, Lincoln L.
    Silverman, Stuart G.
    Gore, Richard M.
    Mayo-Smith, William W.
    Megibow, Alec J.
    Yee, Judy
    Brink, James A.
    Baker, Mark E.
    Federle, Michael P.
    Foley, W. Dennis
    Francis, Isaac R.
    Herts, Brian R.
    Israel, Gary M.
    Krinsky, Glenn
    Platt, Joel F.
    Shuman, William P.
    Taylor, Andrew J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2010, 7 (10) : 754 - 773
  • [5] Should Radiologists Comment on Incidental Findings of Vascular Calcifications Found on Abdominal/Pelvic CT in Patients Less Than 50 Years of Age?
    Bernheim, Adam
    Grunhut, Joel
    Tang, Alex
    Gofur, Ekramul
    Thai, Janice
    Mehta, Varun
    Stern, Jonathan
    Jadidi, Nima
    Hodes, Adam
    Goldwasser, Bernard
    Arneja, Amrita
    Krausz, David
    Coords, Michael
    Peti, Steven
    Chacko, Jerel
    Sarkany, David
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2020, 27 (08) : 1057 - 1062
  • [6] Quantification of abdominal aortic calcification: Inherent measurement errors in current computed tomography imaging
    Buijs, Ruben V. C.
    Leemans, Eva L.
    Greuter, Marcel
    Tielliu, Ignace F. J.
    Zeebregts, Clark J.
    Willems, Tineke P.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (02):
  • [7] Association of Coronary Artery Calcification and Mortality in the National Lung Screening Trial: A Comparison of Three Scoring Methods
    Chiles, Caroline
    Duan, Fenghai
    Gladish, Gregory W.
    Ravenel, James G.
    Baginski, Scott G.
    Snyder, Bradley S.
    DeMello, Sarah
    Desjardins, Stephanie S.
    Munden, Reginald F.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2015, 276 (01) : 82 - 90
  • [8] Cinnamon J., 2002, MULTISLICE VOLUMETRI
  • [9] The impact of abdominal fat on abdominal aorta calcification measured on non-enhanced CT
    Goldenberg, Limor
    Saliba, Walid
    Hayeq, Hashem
    Hasadia, Rabea
    Zeina, Abdel-Rauf
    [J]. MEDICINE, 2018, 97 (49)
  • [10] Calcification of the abdominal aorta as an independent predictor of cardiovascular events: a meta-analysis
    Goncalves, Frederico Bastos
    Voute, Michiel T.
    Hoeks, Sanne E.
    Chonchol, Michel B.
    Boersma, Eric E.
    Stolker, Robert J.
    Verhagen, Hence J. M.
    [J]. HEART, 2012, 98 (13) : 988 - 994