IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0193419.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantification of abdominal aortic calcification: Inherent measurement errors in current computed tomography imaging

Author

Listed:
  • Ruben V C Buijs
  • Eva L Leemans
  • Marcel Greuter
  • Ignace F J Tielliu
  • Clark J Zeebregts
  • Tineke P Willems

Abstract

Objective: Quantification software for coronary calcification is often used to measure abdominal aortic calcification on computed tomography (CT) images. However, there is no evidence substantiating the reliability and accuracy of these tools in this setting. Differences in coronary and abdominal CT acquisition and presence of intravascular contrast may affect the results of these tools. Therefore, this study investigates the effects of CT acquisition parameters and iodine contrast on automated quantification of aortic calcium on CT. Methods: Calcium scores, provided in volume and mass, were assessed by automated calcium quantification software on CT scans. First, differences in calcium scores between the abdominal and coronary CT scanning protocols were assessed by imaging a thorax phantom containing calcifications of 9 metrical variations. Second, aortic calcification was quantified in 50 unenhanced and contrast-enhanced clinical abdominal CT scans at a calcification threshold of 299 Hounsfield Units (HU). Also, the lowest possible HU threshold for calcifications was calculated per individual patient and compared to a 130 HU threshold between contrast-enhanced and unenhanced CT images, respectively. Results: No significant differences in volume and mass scores between the abdominal and the coronary CT protocol were found. However, volume and mass of all calcifications were overestimated compared to the physical volume and mass (volume range: 0–649%; mass range: 0–2619%). In comparing unenhanced versus contrast-enhanced CT images showed significant volume differences for both thresholds, as well as for mass differences for the 130 vs patient-specific threshold (230 ± 22.6 HU). Conclusion: Calcification scoring on CT angiography tends to grossly overestimate volume and mass suggesting a low accuracy and reliability. These are reduced further by interference of intravascular contrast. Future studies applying calcium quantification tools on CT angiography imaging should acknowledge these issues and apply corrective measures to ensure the validity of their outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruben V C Buijs & Eva L Leemans & Marcel Greuter & Ignace F J Tielliu & Clark J Zeebregts & Tineke P Willems, 2018. "Quantification of abdominal aortic calcification: Inherent measurement errors in current computed tomography imaging," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-11, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0193419
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193419
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193419&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0193419?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0193419. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.