Intra-individual comparison of coronary calcium scoring between photon counting detector- and energy integrating detector-CT: Effects on risk reclassification.
Front Cardiovasc Med 2023;
9:1053398. [PMID:
36741832 PMCID:
PMC9892711 DOI:
10.3389/fcvm.2022.1053398]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2022] [Accepted: 12/28/2022] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose
To compare coronary artery calcium volume and score (CACS) between photon-counting detector (PCD) and conventional energy integrating detector (EID) computed tomography (CT) in a phantom and prospective patient study.
Methods
A commercially available CACS phantom was scanned with a standard CACS protocol (120 kVp, slice thickness/increment 3/1.5 mm, and a quantitative Qr36 kernel), with filtered back projection on the EID-CT, and with monoenergetic reconstruction at 70 keV and quantum iterative reconstruction off on the PCD-CT. The same settings were used to prospectively acquire data in patients (n = 23, 65 ± 12.1 years), who underwent PCD- and EID-CT scans with a median of 5.5 (3.0-12.5) days between the two scans in the period from August 2021 to March 2022. CACS was quantified using a commercially available software solution. A regression formula was obtained from the aforementioned comparison and applied to simulate risk reclassification in a pre-existing cohort of 514 patients who underwent a cardiac EID-CT between January and December 2021.
Results
Based on the phantom experiment, CACS PCD-CT showed a more accurate measurement of the reference CAC volumes (overestimation of physical volumes: PCD-CT 66.1 ± 1.6% vs. EID-CT: 77.2 ± 0.5%). CACS EID-CT and CACS PCD-CT were strongly correlated, however, the latter measured significantly lower values in the phantom (CACS PCD-CT : 60.5 (30.2-170.3) vs CACS EID-CT 74.7 (34.6-180.8), p = 0.0015, r = 0.99, mean bias -9.7, Limits of Agreement (LoA) -36.6/17.3) and in patients (non-significant) (CACS PCD-CT : 174.3 (11.1-872.7) vs CACS EID-CT 218.2 (18.5-876.4), p = 0.10, r = 0.94, mean bias -41.1, LoA -315.3/232.5). The systematic lower measurements of Agatston score on PCD-CT system led to reclassification of 5.25% of our simulated patient cohort to a lower classification class.
Conclusion
CACS PCD-CT is feasible and correlates strongly with CACS EID-CT , however, leads to lower CACS values. PCD-CT may provide results that are more accurate for CACS than EID-CT.
Collapse