Carotid stenosis assessment with multi-detector CT angiography: comparison between manual and automatic segmentation methods

Luminal stenosis is used for selecting the optimal management strategy for patients with carotid artery disease. The aim of this study is to evaluate the reproducibility of carotid stenosis quantification using manual and automated segmentation methods using submillimeter through-plane resolution Multi-Detector CT angiography (MDCTA). 35 patients having carotid artery disease with >30 % luminal stenosis as identified by carotid duplex imaging underwent contrast enhanced MDCTA. Two experienced CT readers quantified carotid stenosis from axial source images, reconstructed maximum intensity projection (MIP) and 3D-carotid geometry which was automatically segmented by an open-source toolkit (Vascular Modelling Toolkit, VMTK) using NASCET criteria. Good agreement among the measurement using axial images, MIP and automatic segmentation was observed. Automatic segmentation methods show better inter-observer agreement between the readers (intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC): 0.99 for diameter stenosis measurement) than manual measurement of axial (ICC = 0.82) and MIP (ICC = 0.86) images. Carotid stenosis quantification using an automatic segmentation method has higher reproducibility compared with manual methods.

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

[2]  David A. Steinman,et al.  An image-based modeling framework for patient-specific computational hemodynamics , 2008, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[3]  A. Fox,et al.  Accuracy and prognostic consequences of ultrasonography in identifying severe carotid artery stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) Group. , 1995, Stroke.

[4]  Luca Saba,et al.  Carotid artery stenosis quantification: concordance analysis between radiologist and semi-automatic computer software by using Multi-Detector-Row CT angiography. , 2011, European journal of radiology.

[5]  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.

[6]  J A Sethian,et al.  A fast marching level set method for monotonically advancing fronts. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  George Tomlinson,et al.  Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography: prospective analysis of 2,899 procedures and review of the literature. , 2003, Radiology.

[8]  G. Hankey.  Stroke: how large a public health problem, and how can the neurologist help? , 1999, Archives of neurology.

[9]  L. Saba,et al.  Window Settings for the Study of Calcified Carotid Plaques with Multidetector CT Angiography , 2009, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[10]  L. Antiga,et al.  Scan–Rescan reproducibility of carotid bifurcation geometry from routine contrast‐enhanced MR angiography , 2011, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[11]  H A Marquering,et al.  Performance of Semiautomatic Assessment of Carotid Artery Stenosis on CT Angiography: Clarification of Differences with Manual Assessment , 2012, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[12]  Luca Saba,et al.  Multidetector-row CT angiography in the study of atherosclerotic carotid arteries , 2007, Neuroradiology.

[13]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[14]  J. Wardlaw,et al.  Non-invasive imaging compared with intra-arterial angiography in the diagnosis of symptomatic carotid stenosis: a meta-analysis , 2006, The Lancet.

[15]  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.

[16]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[17]  Luca Saba,et al.  Intima Media Thickness Variability (IMTV) and its association with cerebrovascular events: a novel marker of carotid therosclerosis? , 2011, Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy.

[18]  D. Sackett,et al.  Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  Christoph Thomas,et al.  Carotid artery stenosis: performance of advanced vessel analysis software in evaluating CTA. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[20]  L. Antiga,et al.  Computational geometry for patient-specific reconstruction and meshing of blood vessels from MR and CT angiography , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[21]  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.

[22]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[23]  C. Warlow,et al.  MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial: interim results for symptomatic patients with severe (70-99%) or with mild (0-29%) carotid stenosis , 1991, The Lancet.