Accuracy of ultra-high resolution and virtual non-calcium reconstruction algorithm for stenosis evaluation with photon-counting CT: results from a dynamic phantom study.
Emese Zsarnoczay, Nicola Fink, U Joseph Schoepf, Daniel Pinos, Jim O'Doherty, Thomas Allmendinger, Junia Hagenauer, Joseph P Griffith Iii, Milán Vecsey-Nagy, Pál Maurovich-Horvat, Tilman Emrich, Akos Varga-Szemes
{"title":"Accuracy of ultra-high resolution and virtual non-calcium reconstruction algorithm for stenosis evaluation with photon-counting CT: results from a dynamic phantom study.","authors":"Emese Zsarnoczay, Nicola Fink, U Joseph Schoepf, Daniel Pinos, Jim O'Doherty, Thomas Allmendinger, Junia Hagenauer, Joseph P Griffith Iii, Milán Vecsey-Nagy, Pál Maurovich-Horvat, Tilman Emrich, Akos Varga-Szemes","doi":"10.1186/s41747-024-00482-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We compared ultra-high resolution (UHR), standard resolution (SR), and virtual non-calcium (VNCa) reconstruction for coronary artery stenosis evaluation using photon-counting computed tomography (PC-CT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One vessel phantom (4-mm diameter) containing solid calcified lesions with 25% and 50% stenoses inside a thorax phantom with motion simulation underwent PC-CT using UHR (0.2-mm slice thickness) and SR (0.6-mm slice thickness) at heart rates of 60 beats per minute (bpm), 80 bpm, and 100 bpm. A paired t-test or Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction was used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For 50% stenosis, differences in percent mean diameter stenosis between UHR and SR at 60 bpm (51.0 vs 60.3), 80 bpm (51.7 vs 59.6), and 100 bpm (53.7 vs 59.0) (p ≤ 0.011), as well as between VNCa and SR at 60 bpm (50.6 vs 60.3), 80 bpm (51.5 vs 59.6), and 100 bpm (53.7 vs 59.0) were significant (p ≤ 0.011), while differences between UHR and VNCa at all heart rates (p ≥ 0.327) were not significant. For 25% stenosis, differences between UHR and SR at 60 bpm (28.0 vs 33.7), 80 bpm (28.4 vs 34.3), and VNCa vs SR at 60 bpm (29.1 vs 33.7) were significant (p ≤ 0.015), while differences for UHR vs SR at 100 bpm (29.9 vs 34.0), as well as for VNCa vs SR at 80 bpm (30.7 vs 34.3) and 100 bpm (33.1 vs 34.0) were not significant (p ≥ 0.028).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Stenosis quantification accuracy with PC-CT improved using either UHR acquisition or VNCa reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Relevance statement: </strong>PC-CT offers to scan with UHR mode and the reconstruction of VNCa images both of them could provide improved coronary stenosis quantification at increased heart rates, allowing a more accurate stenosis grading at low and high heart rates compared to SR.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Evaluation of coronary stenosis with conventional CT is challenging at high heart rates. PC-CT allows for scanning with ECG-gated UHR and SR modes. UHR and VNCa images were compared in a dynamic phantom. UHR improves stenosis quantification up to 100 bpm. VNCa reconstruction improves stenosis evaluation up to 80 bpm.</p>","PeriodicalId":36926,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology Experimental","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11362394/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology Experimental","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00482-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: We compared ultra-high resolution (UHR), standard resolution (SR), and virtual non-calcium (VNCa) reconstruction for coronary artery stenosis evaluation using photon-counting computed tomography (PC-CT).
Methods: One vessel phantom (4-mm diameter) containing solid calcified lesions with 25% and 50% stenoses inside a thorax phantom with motion simulation underwent PC-CT using UHR (0.2-mm slice thickness) and SR (0.6-mm slice thickness) at heart rates of 60 beats per minute (bpm), 80 bpm, and 100 bpm. A paired t-test or Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction was used.
Results: For 50% stenosis, differences in percent mean diameter stenosis between UHR and SR at 60 bpm (51.0 vs 60.3), 80 bpm (51.7 vs 59.6), and 100 bpm (53.7 vs 59.0) (p ≤ 0.011), as well as between VNCa and SR at 60 bpm (50.6 vs 60.3), 80 bpm (51.5 vs 59.6), and 100 bpm (53.7 vs 59.0) were significant (p ≤ 0.011), while differences between UHR and VNCa at all heart rates (p ≥ 0.327) were not significant. For 25% stenosis, differences between UHR and SR at 60 bpm (28.0 vs 33.7), 80 bpm (28.4 vs 34.3), and VNCa vs SR at 60 bpm (29.1 vs 33.7) were significant (p ≤ 0.015), while differences for UHR vs SR at 100 bpm (29.9 vs 34.0), as well as for VNCa vs SR at 80 bpm (30.7 vs 34.3) and 100 bpm (33.1 vs 34.0) were not significant (p ≥ 0.028).
Conclusion: Stenosis quantification accuracy with PC-CT improved using either UHR acquisition or VNCa reconstruction.
Relevance statement: PC-CT offers to scan with UHR mode and the reconstruction of VNCa images both of them could provide improved coronary stenosis quantification at increased heart rates, allowing a more accurate stenosis grading at low and high heart rates compared to SR.
Key points: Evaluation of coronary stenosis with conventional CT is challenging at high heart rates. PC-CT allows for scanning with ECG-gated UHR and SR modes. UHR and VNCa images were compared in a dynamic phantom. UHR improves stenosis quantification up to 100 bpm. VNCa reconstruction improves stenosis evaluation up to 80 bpm.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
