Performance of Semiautomatic Assessment of Carotid Artery Stenosis on CT Angiography: Clarification of Differences with Manual Assessment

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Semiautomated methods for ICA stenosis measurements have the potential to reduce interobserver variability and to speed up its analysis. In this study, we estimate the precision and accuracy of a semiautomated measurement for carotid artery stenosis degree and identify and explain differences compared with the manual method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study involving 90 patients, 2 observers determined the stenosis degree twice, with both the semiautomated and the manual method. Intra- and interobserver correlations were calculated for both methods. The accuracy was estimated by comparing average semiautomated with manual measurements. The semiautomated stenosis calculations were performed using either the minimal or maximal intersection at the reference site. Individual cases with large differences in measurement were retrospectively inspected by 3 observers. RESULTS: Intra- (R = 0.93, 0.96) and interobserver (R = 0.98) correlations for the semiautomated method were excellent and exceeded the manual performance correlations (R = 0.87, 0.86). The semiautomated measurements correlated well with the manual measurements (R = 0.87), with high specificity of 96% and lower sensitivity of 63%. Large differences were caused by misinterpretations of the semiautomated method associated with calcified plaques, resulting in overestimations of the minimal diameter, underestimation of stenosis degree, and incorrect centerlines. The effect of using the minimal diameter at the reference position resulted in a small, but significant, underestimation of the stenosis degree by the semiautomated method. CONCLUSIONS: The semiautomated method showed an excellent reproducibility and good correlation with manual measurements with a high specificity and lower sensitivity for detecting a significant stenosis. Erroneous semiautomatic stenosis measurements were associated with the presence of calcium.

[1]  C. Truwit,et al.  Carotid bifurcation calcium and correlation with percent stenosis of the internal carotid artery on CT angiography , 2005, Neuroradiology.

[2]  A. Fox,et al.  Quantification of carotid stenosis on CT angiography. , 2006, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[3]  A. Fox,et al.  Reproducibility of Semi-Automated Measurement of Carotid Stenosis on CTA , 2010, Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques.

[4]  J. Caldwell,et al.  Agreement of Multislice CT Angiography and MR Angiography in Assessing the Degree of Carotid Artery Stenosis in Consideration of Different Methods of Postprocessing , 2006, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[5]  David Saloner,et al.  Semi-automated computer assessment of the degree of carotid artery stenosis compares favorably to visual evaluation , 2008, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[6]  A. Fox,et al.  Classification of Carotid Stenosis by Millimeter CT Angiography Measures: Effects of Prevalence and Gender , 2008, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[7]  D. Sackett,et al.  Benefit of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic moderate or severe stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  T. Rand,et al.  Grading of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis: Can CTA Overcome the Confusion? , 2006, Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists.

[9]  Joachim Hornegger,et al.  Semi-automatic level-set based segmentation and stenosis quantification of the internal carotid artery in 3D CTA data sets , 2007, Medical Image Anal..

[10]  T. Rand,et al.  Automated CTA Quantification of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Pilot Trial , 2007, Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists.

[11]  A. Fox,et al.  Measurement of Carotid Stenosis on Computed Tomographic Angiography: Reliability Depends on Postprocessing Technique , 2010, Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes.

[12]  J. Slattery,et al.  Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) , 1998, The Lancet.

[13]  R. Vanninen,et al.  Carotid artery stenosis: reproducibility of automated 3D CT angiography analysis method , 2004, European Radiology.

[14]  M. Eliasziw,et al.  Analysis of pooled data from the randomised controlled trials of endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis , 2003, The Lancet.

[15]  L. Soinne,et al.  CT angiographic analysis of carotid artery stenosis: comparison of manual assessment, semiautomatic vessel analysis, and digital subtraction angiography. , 2007, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[16]  S Napel,et al.  Diagnosis of carotid artery disease: preliminary experience with maximum-intensity-projection spiral CT angiography. , 1993, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  Jan Stam,et al.  Carotid Disease: Computed tomographic angiography of carotid artery stenosis , 2006 .

[18]  Akihiro Sato,et al.  Quantitative vascular measurements in arterial occlusive disease. , 2005, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[19]  H. Marquering,et al.  The Relation of Carotid Calcium Volume with Carotid Artery Stenosis in Symptomatic Patients , 2011, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[20]  P. Nederkoorn,et al.  Overestimation of carotid artery stenosis with magnetic resonance angiography compared with digital subtraction angiography. , 2002, Journal of vascular surgery.

[21]  J. Slattery,et al.  Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) , 1998, The Lancet.