Laqmani A, Klink T, Quitzke M, Creder D D, Adam G, Lund G
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclearmedicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Insitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Rofo. 2016 Oct;188(10):933-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-110099. Epub 2016 Jul 19.
To evaluate the accuracy of automatic plaque detection and the interobserver agreement of automatic versus manually adjusted quantification of coronary plaques on coronary CT angiography (cCTA) using commercially available software.
10 cCTA datasets were evaluated using plaque software. First, the automatically detected plaques were verified. Second, two observers independently performed plaque quantification without revising the automatically constructed plaque contours (automatic approach). Then, each observer adjusted the plaque contours according to plaque delineation (adjusted approach). The interobserver agreement of both approaches was analyzed.
32 of 114 automatically identified findings were true-positive plaques, while 82 (72 %) were false-positive. 20 of 52 plaques (38 %) were missed by the software (false-negative). The automatic approach provided good interobserver agreement with relative differences of 0.9 ± 16.0 % for plaque area and -3.3 ± 33.8 % for plaque volume. Both observers independently adjusted all contours because they did not represent the plaque delineation. Interobserver agreement decreased for the adjusted approach with relative differences of 25.0 ± 24.8 % for plaque area and 20.0 ± 40.4 % for plaque volume.
The automatic plaque analysis software is of limited value due to high numbers of false-positive and false-negative plaque findings. The automatic approach was reproducible but it necessitated adjustment of all constructed plaque contours resulting in deterioration of the interobserver agreement.
• Automatic plaque detection is limited due to high false-positive and false-negative findings.• Automatic plaque quantification was reproducible in the few accurately detected plaques.• The automatically constructed contours did not represent the plaque delineation.• Both observers independently adjusted the plaque contours.• Manual adjustment of plaque contours reduced the interobserver agreement. Citation Format: • Laqmani A, Klink T, Quitzke M et al. Accuracy of Coronary Plaque Detection and Assessment of Interobserver Agreement for Plaque Quantification Using Automatic Coronary Plaque Analysis Software on Coronary CT Angiography. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2016; 188: 933 - 939.
使用商用软件评估冠状动脉CT血管造影（cCTA）上自动斑块检测的准确性以及自动与手动调整的冠状动脉斑块定量分析中观察者间的一致性。
使用斑块软件评估10个cCTA数据集。首先，对自动检测到的斑块进行验证。其次，两名观察者独立进行斑块定量分析，不修改自动构建的斑块轮廓（自动方法）。然后，每位观察者根据斑块轮廓进行调整（调整方法）。分析两种方法的观察者间一致性。
114个自动识别的结果中，32个为真阳性斑块，而82个（72%）为假阳性。软件遗漏了52个斑块中的20个（38%）（假阴性）。自动方法提供了良好的观察者间一致性，斑块面积的相对差异为0.9±16.0%，斑块体积的相对差异为-3.3±33.8%。两名观察者都独立调整了所有轮廓，因为它们不能代表斑块轮廓。调整方法的观察者间一致性降低，斑块面积的相对差异为25.0±24.8%，斑块体积的相对差异为20.0±40.4%。
由于大量的假阳性和假阴性斑块结果，自动斑块分析软件的价值有限。自动方法具有可重复性，但需要调整所有构建的斑块轮廓，导致观察者间一致性下降。
• 自动斑块检测由于高假阳性和假阴性结果而受到限制。• 在少数准确检测到的斑块中，自动斑块定量具有可重复性。• 自动构建的轮廓不能代表斑块轮廓。• 两名观察者都独立调整了斑块轮廓。• 手动调整斑块轮廓降低了观察者间一致性。引用格式：• Laqmani A, Klink T, Quitzke M等。冠状动脉CT血管造影上使用自动冠状动脉斑块分析软件进行冠状动脉斑块检测的准确性及斑块定量分析中观察者间一致性的评估。Fortschr Röntgenstr 2016; 188: 933 - 939。
