Abstract
Objective: To evaluate optimal methodology for quantitative plaque volume analysis by coronary CT angiography (QCT). Methods: Fifty-one coronary artery segments were evaluated and contour measurements based on two different methods [(1) no gap, or (2) fixed 0.3-mm gap between inner and outer boundary] were compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). In addition, three different window width (WW) and level (WL) settings [fixed (740/220) Hounsfield unit (HU), adjusted (155 % and 65 % of mean luminal intensity of the segment, and aorta adjusted (155 % and 65 % of mean luminal intensity of central aorta)] were used for semiautomated plaque volume analysis. Results: For boundary detection, the no gap method led to underestimation compared with IVUS (105.4 ± 82.3 vs. 136.1 ± 72.8 mm3, p < 0.001), while fixed 0.3-mm gap showed no difference between IVUS and QCT (136.1 ± 72.8 vs. 139.8 ± 93.9 mm3, p = 0.50). Comparison of the three different window settings demonstrated that the aorta adjusted setting underestimated (120.5 ± 74.3 vs. 136.1 ± 72.8 mm3, p = 0.003), while fixed setting showed the least mean difference compared with IVUS (3.8 ± 39.8 mm3, p = 0.50). Conclusion: For plaque volumetric assessment, optimal results were obtained with fixed 0.3-mm gap with fixed HU setting (740/220). Key Points: • Quantitative plaque volume analysis by coronary CT angiography has recently emerged. • Different boundary detection methods and window width and level settings were evaluated. • Fixed 0.3-mm gap with fixed HU setting (740/220) afforded optimal results.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 3190-3198 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | European Radiology |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue number | 9 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2016 Sep 1 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Cite this
}
Optimal boundary detection method and window settings for coronary atherosclerotic plaque volume analysis in coronary computed tomography angiography : comparison with intravascular ultrasound. / Heo, Ran; Park, Hyung Bok; Lee, Byoung Kwon; Shin, Sanghoon; Arsanjani, Reza; Min, James K.; Chang, Hyuk Jae.
In: European Radiology, Vol. 26, No. 9, 01.09.2016, p. 3190-3198.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Optimal boundary detection method and window settings for coronary atherosclerotic plaque volume analysis in coronary computed tomography angiography
T2 - comparison with intravascular ultrasound
AU - Heo, Ran
AU - Park, Hyung Bok
AU - Lee, Byoung Kwon
AU - Shin, Sanghoon
AU - Arsanjani, Reza
AU - Min, James K.
AU - Chang, Hyuk Jae
PY - 2016/9/1
Y1 - 2016/9/1
N2 - Objective: To evaluate optimal methodology for quantitative plaque volume analysis by coronary CT angiography (QCT). Methods: Fifty-one coronary artery segments were evaluated and contour measurements based on two different methods [(1) no gap, or (2) fixed 0.3-mm gap between inner and outer boundary] were compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). In addition, three different window width (WW) and level (WL) settings [fixed (740/220) Hounsfield unit (HU), adjusted (155 % and 65 % of mean luminal intensity of the segment, and aorta adjusted (155 % and 65 % of mean luminal intensity of central aorta)] were used for semiautomated plaque volume analysis. Results: For boundary detection, the no gap method led to underestimation compared with IVUS (105.4 ± 82.3 vs. 136.1 ± 72.8 mm3, p < 0.001), while fixed 0.3-mm gap showed no difference between IVUS and QCT (136.1 ± 72.8 vs. 139.8 ± 93.9 mm3, p = 0.50). Comparison of the three different window settings demonstrated that the aorta adjusted setting underestimated (120.5 ± 74.3 vs. 136.1 ± 72.8 mm3, p = 0.003), while fixed setting showed the least mean difference compared with IVUS (3.8 ± 39.8 mm3, p = 0.50). Conclusion: For plaque volumetric assessment, optimal results were obtained with fixed 0.3-mm gap with fixed HU setting (740/220). Key Points: • Quantitative plaque volume analysis by coronary CT angiography has recently emerged. • Different boundary detection methods and window width and level settings were evaluated. • Fixed 0.3-mm gap with fixed HU setting (740/220) afforded optimal results.
AB - Objective: To evaluate optimal methodology for quantitative plaque volume analysis by coronary CT angiography (QCT). Methods: Fifty-one coronary artery segments were evaluated and contour measurements based on two different methods [(1) no gap, or (2) fixed 0.3-mm gap between inner and outer boundary] were compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). In addition, three different window width (WW) and level (WL) settings [fixed (740/220) Hounsfield unit (HU), adjusted (155 % and 65 % of mean luminal intensity of the segment, and aorta adjusted (155 % and 65 % of mean luminal intensity of central aorta)] were used for semiautomated plaque volume analysis. Results: For boundary detection, the no gap method led to underestimation compared with IVUS (105.4 ± 82.3 vs. 136.1 ± 72.8 mm3, p < 0.001), while fixed 0.3-mm gap showed no difference between IVUS and QCT (136.1 ± 72.8 vs. 139.8 ± 93.9 mm3, p = 0.50). Comparison of the three different window settings demonstrated that the aorta adjusted setting underestimated (120.5 ± 74.3 vs. 136.1 ± 72.8 mm3, p = 0.003), while fixed setting showed the least mean difference compared with IVUS (3.8 ± 39.8 mm3, p = 0.50). Conclusion: For plaque volumetric assessment, optimal results were obtained with fixed 0.3-mm gap with fixed HU setting (740/220). Key Points: • Quantitative plaque volume analysis by coronary CT angiography has recently emerged. • Different boundary detection methods and window width and level settings were evaluated. • Fixed 0.3-mm gap with fixed HU setting (740/220) afforded optimal results.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84949033073&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84949033073&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-015-4121-5
DO - 10.1007/s00330-015-4121-5
M3 - Article
C2 - 26630996
AN - SCOPUS:84949033073
VL - 26
SP - 3190
EP - 3198
JO - European Radiology
JF - European Radiology
SN - 0938-7994
IS - 9
ER -