1 Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Ocean State Research Institute, Inc, and the Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University Providence RI.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Jan 8;8(1):e010110. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.010110.
Background Image reconstruction thickness may impact quantitative coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS) from lung cancer screening computed tomography (LCSCT), limiting its application in practice. Methods and Results We evaluated Agatston-based quantitative CACS from 1.25-mm LCSCT and cardiac computed tomography for agreement in 87 patients. We then evaluated Agatston-based quantitative CACS from 1.25-, 2.5-, and 5.0-mm slice thickness LCSCT for agreement in 258 patients. Secondary analysis included the impact of slice thickness on predictive value of 4-year outcomes. Median age of patients who underwent 1.25-mm LCSCT and cardiac computed tomography was 63 years (interquartile interval, 57, 68). CACS from 1.25-mm LCSCT and cardiac computed tomography demonstrated a strong Pearson correlation, R=0.9770 (0.965, 0.985), with good agreement. The receiver operating characteristic curve areas under the curve for cardiac computed tomography and LCSCT were comparable at 0.8364 (0.6628, 1.01) and 0.8208 (0.6431, 0.9985), respectively ( P=0.733). Median age of patients who underwent LCSCT with 3 slice thicknesses was 66 years (interquartile interval, 63, 73). Compared with CACS from 1.25-mm scans, CACS from 2.5- and 5.0-mm scans demonstrated strong Pearson correlations, R=0.9949 (0.9935, 0.996) and R=0.9478 (0.9338, 0.959), respectively, though bias was largely negative for 5.0-mm scans. Receiver operating characteristic curve areas under the curve for 1.25-, 2.5-, and 5.0-mm scans were comparable at 0.7040 (0.6307, 0.7772), 0.7063 (0.6327, 0.7799), and 0.7194 (0.6407, 0.7887), respectively ( P=0.6487). When using individualized high-risk thresholds derived from respective receiver operating characteristic curves, all slice thicknesses demonstrated similar prognostic value. Conclusions Slice thickness is an important consideration when interpreting Agatston CACS from LCSCTs. Despite the absence of ECG gating, it appears reasonable to report CACS from either 1.25- or 2.5-mm slice thickness LCSCT to help stratify cardiovascular risk. Conversely, 5.0-mm scans largely underidentify calcium, limiting practical use within the established CACS values used to categorize cardiovascular risk.
背景 图像重建厚度可能会影响肺癌筛查计算机断层扫描(LCSCT)的定量冠状动脉钙评分(CACS),限制了其在实践中的应用。
方法和结果 我们评估了 87 例患者的 1.25mm LCSCT 和心脏计算机断层扫描的基于 Agatston 的定量 CACS 的一致性。然后,我们评估了 258 例患者的 1.25、2.5 和 5.0mm 层厚 LCSCT 的基于 Agatston 的定量 CACS 的一致性。二次分析包括层厚对 4 年预后预测价值的影响。接受 1.25mm LCSCT 和心脏计算机断层扫描的患者中位年龄为 63 岁(四分位间距,57,68)。1.25mm LCSCT 和心脏计算机断层扫描的 CACS 具有很强的 Pearson 相关性,R=0.9770(0.965,0.985),一致性良好。心脏计算机断层扫描和 LCSCT 的受试者工作特征曲线下面积曲线分别为 0.8364(0.6628,1.01)和 0.8208(0.6431,0.9985),具有可比性(P=0.733)。接受 3 种层厚 LCSCT 的患者的中位年龄为 66 岁(四分位间距,63,73)。与 1.25mm 扫描的 CACS 相比,2.5mm 和 5.0mm 扫描的 CACS 具有很强的 Pearson 相关性,R=0.9949(0.9935,0.996)和 R=0.9478(0.9338,0.959),尽管 5.0mm 扫描的偏差主要为负。1.25、2.5 和 5.0mm 扫描的受试者工作特征曲线下面积曲线分别为 0.7040(0.6307,0.7772)、0.7063(0.6327,0.7799)和 0.7194(0.6407,0.7887),具有可比性(P=0.6487)。当使用各自的受试者工作特征曲线得出的个体化高风险阈值时,所有层厚的预测价值均相似。
结论 当解释 LCSCT 的 Agatston CACS 时,层厚是一个重要的考虑因素。尽管没有心电图门控,报告 1.25 或 2.5mm 层厚 LCSCT 的 CACS 似乎有助于分层心血管风险,这似乎是合理的。相反,5.0mm 扫描在很大程度上无法识别钙,限制了在用于分类心血管风险的既定 CACS 值范围内的实际应用。