Optimal boundary detection method and window settings for coronary atherosclerotic plaque volume analysis in coronary computed tomography angiography: comparison with intravascular ultrasound

Ran Heo; Hyung Bok Park; Byoung Kwon Lee; Sanghoon Shin; Reza Arsanjani; James K. Min; Hyuk Jae Chang

doi:10.1007/s00330-015-4121-5

Optimal boundary detection method and window settings for coronary atherosclerotic plaque volume analysis in coronary computed tomography angiography: comparison with intravascular ultrasound

Ran Heo, Hyung Bok Park, Byoung Kwon Lee, Sanghoon Shin, Reza Arsanjani, James K. Min, Hyuk Jae Chang

Department of Internal Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)

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	https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4121-5
Publication status	Published - 2016 Sep 1

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Hyuk-Jae Chang, MD, PhD. All authors disclose no conflict of interest. This study has received funding from the Leading Foreign Research Institute Recruitment Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (MSIP) (No. 2012027176). No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, European Society of Radiology.

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Access to Document

10.1007/s00330-015-4121-5

Cite this

Heo, Ran ; Park, Hyung Bok ; Lee, Byoung Kwon ; Shin, Sanghoon ; Arsanjani, Reza ; Min, James K. ; Chang, Hyuk Jae. / Optimal boundary detection method and window settings for coronary atherosclerotic plaque volume analysis in coronary computed tomography angiography : comparison with intravascular ultrasound. In: European Radiology. 2016 ; Vol. 26, No. 9. pp. 3190-3198.

@article{69fe9cdd34c44e0081fcb467c03e9a72,

title = "Optimal boundary detection method and window settings for coronary atherosclerotic plaque volume analysis in coronary computed tomography angiography: comparison with intravascular ultrasound",

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.",

author = "Ran Heo and Park, {Hyung Bok} and Lee, {Byoung Kwon} and Sanghoon Shin and Reza Arsanjani and Min, {James K.} and Chang, {Hyuk Jae}",

note = "Funding Information: The scientific guarantor of this publication is Hyuk-Jae Chang, MD, PhD. All authors disclose no conflict of interest. This study has received funding from the Leading Foreign Research Institute Recruitment Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (MSIP) (No. 2012027176). No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2015, European Society of Radiology.",

year = "2016",

month = sep,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1007/s00330-015-4121-5",

language = "English",

volume = "26",

pages = "3190--3198",

journal = "European Radiology",

issn = "0938-7994",

publisher = "Springer Verlag",

number = "9",

}

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 › peer-review

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

N1 - Funding Information: The scientific guarantor of this publication is Hyuk-Jae Chang, MD, PhD. All authors disclose no conflict of interest. This study has received funding from the Leading Foreign Research Institute Recruitment Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (MSIP) (No. 2012027176). No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board. Publisher Copyright: © 2015, European Society of Radiology.

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 -

Optimal boundary detection method and window settings for coronary atherosclerotic plaque volume analysis in coronary computed tomography angiography: comparison with intravascular ultrasound

Abstract

Bibliographical note

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this