Task-dependent estimability index to assess the quality of cardiac computed tomography angiography for quantifying coronary stenosis

Abstract. Purpose: Quantifying stenosis in cardiac computed tomography angiography (CTA) images remains a difficult task, as image noise and cardiac motion can degrade image quality and distort underlying anatomic information. The purpose of this study was to develop a computational framework to objectively assess the precision of quantifying coronary stenosis in cardiac CTA. Approach: The framework used models of coronary vessels and plaques, asymmetric motion point spread functions, CT image blur (task-based modulation transfer functions) and noise (noise-power spectrums), and an automated maximum-likelihood estimator implemented as a matched template squared-difference operator. These factors were integrated into an estimability index (e  ′  ) as a task-based measure of image quality in cardiac CTA. The e  ′   index was applied to assess how well it can to predict the quality of 132 clinical cases selected from the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain trial. The cases were divided into two cohorts, high quality and low quality, based on clinical scores and the concordance of clinical evaluations of cases by experienced cardiac imagers. The framework was also used to ascertain protocol factors for CTA Biomarker initiative of the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA). Results: The e  ′   index categorized the patient datasets with an area under the curve of 0.985, an accuracy of 0.977, and an optimal e  ′   threshold of 25.58 corresponding to a stenosis estimation precision (standard deviation) of 3.91%. Data resampling and training–test validation methods demonstrated stable classifier thresholds and receiver operating curve performance. The framework was successfully applicable to the QIBA objective. Conclusions: A computational framework to objectively quantify stenosis estimation task performance was successfully implemented and was reflective of clinical results in the context of a prominent clinical trial with diverse sites, readers, scanners, acquisition protocols, and patients. It also demonstrated the potential for prospective optimization of imaging protocols toward targeted precision and measurement consistency in cardiac CT images.

[1]  Xueqian Xie,et al.  Motion-corrected coronary calcium scores by a convolutional neural network: a robotic simulating study , 2019, European Radiology.

[2]  Michael J Pencina,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. , 2012, JAMA.

[3]  J. Solomon,et al.  Characteristic image quality of a third generation dual-source MDCT scanner: Noise, resolution, and detectability. , 2015, Medical physics.

[4]  E. Bolson,et al.  Lumen Diameter of Normal Human Coronary Arteries: Influence of Age, Sex, Anatomic Variation, and Left Ventricular Hypertrophy or Dilation , 1992, Circulation.

[5]  Michael T. Lu,et al.  Central Core Laboratory versus Site Interpretation of Coronary CT Angiography: Agreement and Association with Cardiovascular Events in the PROMISE Trial. , 2017, Radiology.

[6]  S. Achenbach,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Transluminal Attenuation Gradient and Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from 320-Detector Row CT Angiography to Diagnose Hemodynamically Significant Coronary Stenosis: An NXT Substudy. , 2016, Radiology.

[7]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  Performance Evaluation of Computed Tomography Systems: Summary of AAPM Task Group 233. , 2019, Medical physics.

[8]  Daniel S. Berman,et al.  What have we learned from CONFIRM? Prognostic implications from a prospective multicenter international observational cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing coronary computed tomographic angiography , 2012, Journal of Nuclear Cardiology.

[9]  M. Budoff,et al.  Coronary Artery Motion During the Cardiac Cycle and Optimal ECG Triggering for Coronary Artery Imaging , 2001, Investigative radiology.

[10]  S. Achenbach,et al.  SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary CT angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. , 2014, Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography.

[11]  Charles A. Taylor,et al.  Uncertainty quantification in coronary blood flow simulations: Impact of geometry, boundary conditions and blood viscosity. , 2016, Journal of biomechanics.

[12]  E. McVeigh,et al.  Precise Measurement of Coronary Stenosis Diameter with CCTA Using CT Number Calibration. , 2019, Medical physics.

[13]  K. Anstrom,et al.  PROspective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of chest pain: rationale and design of the PROMISE trial. , 2014, American heart journal.

[14]  Yi Xu,et al.  The Diagnostic Performance of Coronary CT Angiography for the Assessment of Coronary Stenosis in Calcified Plaque , 2016, PloS one.

[15]  Mithat Gönen,et al.  Quantitative imaging biomarkers: A review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment , 2015, Statistical methods in medical research.

[16]  G. Hillis,et al.  64-Slice computed tomography angiography in the diagnosis and assessment of coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2008, Heart.

[17]  Fabian Bamberg,et al.  Coronary computed tomography angiography for early triage of patients with acute chest pain: the ROMICAT (Rule Out Myocardial Infarction using Computer Assisted Tomography) trial. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[18]  M. Pencina,et al.  Prognostic Value of Noninvasive Cardiovascular Testing in Patients With Stable Chest Pain: Insights From the PROMISE Trial (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) , 2017, Circulation.

[19]  Bálint Szilveszter,et al.  Plaque assessment by coronary CT , 2015, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

[20]  Hongfeng Ma,et al.  Evaluation of motion artifact metrics for coronary CT angiography , 2018, Medical physics.

[21]  Elliot R. McVeigh,et al.  Displacement and velocity of the coronary arteries: cardiac and respiratory motion , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[22]  Ming-Ting Wu,et al.  2014 SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary CT angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. , 2015, Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography.

[23]  F. Rybicki,et al.  Computed tomography angiography and perfusion to assess coronary artery stenosis causing perfusion defects by single photon emission computed tomography: the CORE320 study. , 2014, European heart journal.

[24]  N. Petrick,et al.  Volume estimation of low-contrast lesions with CT: a comparison of performances from a phantom study, simulations and theoretical analysis , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Cardiac CT estimability index: an ideal estimator in the presence of noise and motion , 2019, Medical Imaging.

[26]  E. Yow,et al.  A selection of recent, original research papers , 2015, Journal of Nuclear Cardiology.

[27]  G. Mintz,et al.  Measurements of Lumen Areas and Diameters of Proximal and Middle Coronary Artery Segments in Subjects Without Coronary Atherosclerosis. , 2018, The American journal of cardiology.

[28]  Elliot R. McVeigh,et al.  The impact of small motion on the visualization of coronary vessels and lesions in cardiac CT: A simulation study , 2017, Medical physics.