Low Radiation Dose Calcium Scoring: Evidence and Techniques

Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2016, Pages

  Baron, Kaitlin B ^a   Choi, Andrew D ^a,b   Chen, Marcus Y ^b  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

^b NATIONAL HEART LUNG AND BLOOD INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD); Computed tomography (CT); Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring; Coronary artery disease; Iterative Reconstruction; Low dose radiation; Rescan variability

Indexed keywords

LOW DENSITY LIPOPROTEIN CHOLESTEROL;

AGATSTON SCORE; CARDIAC IMAGING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY ATHEROSCLEROSIS; CORONARY ARTERY CALCIUM SCORE; ELECTRON BEAM TOMOGRAPHY; FRAMINGHAM RISK SCORE; HUMAN; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; LOW ENERGY RADIATION; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY;

EID: 84962360969     PISSN: 19419066     EISSN: 19419074     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12410-016-9373-1     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Greenland P, Alpert JS, Beller GA, Benjamin EJ, Budoff MJ, Fayad ZA, et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA guideline for assessment of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2010;122(25):e584–636.
2. Kim KP, Einstein AJ, Berrington de Gonzalez A. Coronary artery calcification screening: estimated radiation dose and cancer risk. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(13):1188–94.
3. Valenti V, Hartaigh B, Heo R, Cho I, Schulman-Marcus J, Gransar H, et al. A 15-year warranty period for asymptomatic individuals without coronary artery calcium. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2015;8(8):900–9. This recent study evaluated CAC scores in asymptomatic individuals without known CAD using electron beam computed tomography and found that with a CAC score of 0 the warranty period, defined as <1% annual mortality rate, was almost 15 years. This study demonstrates the utility of using CAC scores in assessing cardiovascular disease in patients that are at low to intermediate risk.
4. Detrano R, Guerci AD, Carr JJ, Bild DE, Burke G, Folsom AR, et al. Coronary calcium as a predictor of coronary events in four racial or ethnic groups. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(13):1336–45.
5. Taylor AJ, Bindeman J, Feuerstein I, Le T, Bauer K, Byrd C, et al. Community-based provision of statin and aspirin after the detection of coronary artery calcium within a community-based screening cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(14):1337–41.
6. Rozanksi A, Gransar H, Shaw L, Kim J, Miranda-Peats L, Wong ND, et al. Impact of coronary artery calcium scanning on coronary risk factors and downstream testing: the EISNER (Early Identification of Subclinical Atherosclerosis by Noninvasive Imaging Research) prospective randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(15):1622–32.
7. Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, Bairey Merz CN, Blum CB, Eckel RH, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(25 Pt B):2889–934.
8. Nasir K, Bittencourt MS, Blaha MJ, Blankstein R, Agatson AS, Rivera JJ, et al. Implications of coronary artery calcium testing among statin candidates according to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Management Guidelines: MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(15):1657–68. This recent study evaluated the implications of CAC scoring in reclassifying patients from a risk category in which statins are recommended to one in which they are not in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atheroslcerosis. This study demonstrated the utility of an absence of CAC in the ability to reclassify about 50% of patients as not eligible for statin therapy and a low risk of future atherosclerotic coronary vascular disease events.
9. Goff Jr DC, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, Coady S, D’Agostino Sr RB, Gibbons R, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(25 Pt B):2935–59.
10. Voros S, Rivera JJ, Berman DS, Blankstein R, Budoff MJ, Cury RC, et al. Guideline for minimizing radiation exposure during acquisition of coronary artery calcium scans with the use of multidetector computed tomography: a report by the Society for Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention Tomographic Imaging and Prevention Councils in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011;5(2):75–83.
11. Knez A, Becker C, Becker A, Leber A, White C, Reiser M, et al. Determination of coronary calcium with multi-slice spiral computed tomography: a comparative study with electron-beam CT. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2002;18(4):295–303.
12. Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ, Zusmer NR, Viamonte Jr M, Detrano R. Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;15(4):827–32.
13. Dey D, Nakazato R, Pimentel R, Paz W, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, et al. Low radiation coronary calcium scoring by dual-source CT with tube current optimization based on patient body size. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012;6(2):113–20.
14. Nakazato R, Dey D, Gutstein A, Le Meunier L, Cheng VY, Pimental R, et al. Coronary artery calcium scoring using a reduced tube current voltage and radiation dose protocol with dual-source computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2009;3(6):394–400.
15. Marwan M, Mettin C, Pflederer T, Seltmann M, Schuhback A, Muschiol G, et al. Very low-dose coronary artery calcium scanning with high-pitch spiral acquisition mode: comparison between 120-kV and 100-kV tube voltage protocols. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2013;7(1):32–8.
16. Newton TD, Mehrez H, Wong K, Menezes R, Wintersperger BJ, Crean A, et al. Radiation dose threshold for coronary artery calcium score with MDCT: how low can you go? Eur Radiol. 2011;21(10):2121–9.
17. Willemink MJ, de Jong PA, Leiner T, de Heer LM, Nievelstein RA, Budde RP, et al. Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography Part 1: technical principles. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(6):1623–31.
18. Leipsic J, Heilbron BG, Hague C. Iterative reconstruction for coronary CT angiography: finding its way. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;28(3):613–20.
19. Leipsic J, Labounty TM, Heilbron B, Min JK, Mancini GB, Lin FY, et al. Estimated radiation dose reduction using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in coronary CT angiography: the ERASIR study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(3):655–60.
20. Moscariello A, Takx RA, Schoepf UJ, Renker M, Zwerner PL, O’Brien TX, et al. Coronary CT angiography: image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and potential for radiation dose reduction using a novel iterative image reconstruction technique-comparison with traditional filtered back projection. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(10):2130–8.
21. Pontana F, Duhamel A, Pagniez J, Flohr T, Faivre JB, Hachulla AL, et al. Chest computed tomography using iterative reconstruction vs filtered back projection (Part 2): image quality of low-dose CT examinations in 80 patients. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(3):636–43.
22. Katsura M, Matsuda I, Akahane M, Sato J, Akai H, Yasaka K, et al. Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(8):1613–23.
23. Rajiah P, Schoenhagen P. The role of computed tomography in pre-procedural planning of cardiovascular surgery and intervention. Insights Imaging. 2013;4(5):671–89.
24. Schindler A, Vliegenthart R, Schoepf UJ, Blanke P, Ebersberger U, Cho YJ, et al. Iterative image reconstruction techniques for CT coronary artery calcium quantification: comparison with traditional filtered back projection in vitro and in vivo. Radiology. 2014;270(2):387–93. This study compared the use of IRIS and SAFIRE to traditional FBP in patients undergoing routine CAC scoring and found that there was excellent agreement of categorization in Agatston risk percentiles using all three imaging modalities and no significiant difference in mean Agatston scores between the three imaging modalities. This study suggests that IRIS and SAFIRE can be used to lower the radiation dose in CAC scoring without significantly affecting the Agatston scores and risk categories.
25. Kurata A, Dharampal A, Dedic A, de Feyter PJ, Krestin GP, Dijkshoorn ML, et al. Impact of iterative reconstruction on CT coronary calcium quantification. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(12):3246–52.
26. Gebhard C, Fiechter M, Fuchs TA, Ghadri JR, Herzog BA, Kuhn F, et al. Coronary artery calcium scoring: influence of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction using 64-MDCT. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(6):2932–7.
27. van Osch JA, Mouden M, van Dalen JA, Timmer JR, Reiffers S, Knollema S, et al. Influence of iterative image reconstruction on CT-based calcium score measurements. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;30(5):961–7.
28. Takahashi M, Kimura F, Umezawa T, Watanabe Y, Ogawa H. Comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques in quantifying coronary calcium. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015.
29. Obmann VC, Klink T, Heverhagen JT, Stork A, Laqmani A, Adam G, et al. Impact of hybrid iterative reconstruction on Agatston coronary artery calcium scores in comparison to filtered back projection in native cardiac CT. Rofo. 2015;187(5):372–9.
30. Szilveszter B, Elzomor H, Karolyi M, Kolossvary M, Raaijmakers R, Benke K, et al. The effect of iterative model reconstruction on coronary artery calcium quantification. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015.
31. Hecht HS, de Siqueira ME, Cham M, Yip R, Narula J, Henschke C, et al. Low- vs. standard-dose coronary artery calcium scanning. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16(4):358–63. This study compared CAC scoring at both standard radiation dosing and 50% of the standard radiation dosing using hybrid IR and found that there was excellent correlation of the Agatston scores and risk categories at both radiation doses despite a significant difference in the individual scores. This study suggests that CAC scoring can be performed at a lower radiation dose without significantly affecting the Agatston score risk classification.
32. Choi AD, Leifer E, Shanbhag SM, et al. Coronary artery calcium scoring on 320 detector row CT demonstrates low interscan variability at standard and 70% reduced radiation dose. Journal for Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. 2015;9(4):S90. This study evaluated the use of AIDR 3D, a novel iterative reconstruction algorithm in CAC scoring and was able to achieve a 70% reduction in radiation dose while maintaining an excellent agreement in Agatston score risk classification as well as excellent interscan reproducibility. This study suggests that CAC scoring can be performed at a much lower radiation dose without significantly affecting the Agatston score risk classification.
33. Willemink MJ, Takx RA, de Jong PA, Budde RP, Bleys RL, Das M, et al. The impact of CT radiation dose reduction and iterative reconstruction algorithms from four different vendors on coronary calcium scoring. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(9):2201–12. This study evaluated CAC scoring in ex vivo hearts using four different radiation protocols and four different CT scanner vendors and found that lowering the radiation dose did not significantly change the Agatson scores, but that there was a significant difference in the Agatston scores between the four vendors.
34. Willemink MJ, den Harder AM. Foppen W. Rienks R, Laufer EM, et al. Finding the optimal dose reduction and iterative reconstruction level for coronary calcium scoring. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr: Schilham AM; 2015.
35. Matsuura N, Urashima M, Fukumoto W, Sunamori H, Tatsugami F, Toyota N, et al. Radiation dose reduction at coronary artery calcium scoring by using a low tube current technique and hybrid iterative reconstruction. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015;39(1):119–24.
36. Ghadri JR, Goetti R, Fiechter M, Pazhenkottil AP, Kuest SM, Nkoulou RN, et al. Inter-scan variability of coronary artery calcium scoring assessed on 64-multidetector computed tomography vs. dual-source computed tomography: a head-to-head comparison. Eur Heart J. 2011;32(15):1865–74.
37. Detrano RC, Anderson M, Nelson J, Wong ND, Carr JJ, McNitt-Gray M, et al. Coronary calcium measurements: effect of CT scanner type and calcium measure on rescan reproducibility—MESA study. Radiology. 2005;236(2):477–84.
38. World Medical Association [Internet]. WMA Declaration of Helsinki—Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. 2015 [Accessed 13 December 2015]. Available at: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/.
39. Mascette AM, Bernard GR, Dimichele D, Goldner JA, Harrington R, Harris PA, et al. Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group’s report on optimizing the IRB process. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710–4.
40. Pisano ED, Gatonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1773–83.
41. Humphrey LL, Deffebach M, Pappas M, Baumann C, Artis K, Mitchell JP, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic review to update the US Preventative Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(6):411–20.
42. Brenner DJ, Georgsson MA. Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern? Gastroenterology. 2005;129(1):328–37.