Anders K, Achenbach S, Petit I, Daniel W, Uder M, Pflederer T (2013)
Publication Type: Journal article
Publication year: 2013
Book Volume: 23
Pages Range: 1218-1225
Journal Issue: 5
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2717-6
Purpose: True automated detection of coronary artery stenoses might be useful whenever expert evaluation is not available, or as a "second reader" to enhance diagnostic confidence. We evaluated the accuracy of a PC-based stenosis detection tool alone and combined with expert interpretation. Methods: One hundred coronary CT angiography datasets were evaluated with the automated software alone, by manual interpretation (axial images, multiplanar reformations and maximum intensity projections in free double-oblique planes), and by expert interpretation aware of the automated findings. Stenoses ≥ 50 % were noted per-vessel and per-patient, and compared with invasive angiography. Results: Automated post-processing was successful in 90 % of patients (88 % of vessels). When excluding uninterpretable datasets, per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 89 %, 79 %, 74 % and 92 % (per-vessel: 82 %, 85 %, 48 % and 96 %). All 100 datasets were evaluable by expert interpretation. Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 95 %, 95 %, 93 % and 97 % (per-vessel: 89 %,98 %, 88 % and 98 %). Knowing the results of automated interpretation did not improve the performance of expert readers. Conclusion: Automated off-line post-processing of coronary CT angiography shows adequate sensitivity, but relatively low specificity in coronary stenosis detection. It does not increase accuracy of expert interpretation. Failure of post-processing in 10 % of all patients necessitates additional manual image work-up. Key Points: • Coronary CT angiography is increasingly used for detection of coronary artery stenosis • Computer assisted diagnosis might facilitate and speed up interpretation • Performance in properly segmented cases compared favourably with manual image interpretation • However, automated segmentation failed in about 10 % of cases • Manual reading is still mandatory; computer assisted diagnosis can provide a useful second read © 2012 European Society of Radiology.
APA:
Anders, K., Achenbach, S., Petit, I., Daniel, W., Uder, M., & Pflederer, T. (2013). Accuracy of automated software-guided detection of significant coronary artery stenosis by CT angiography: Comparison with invasive catheterisation. European Radiology, 23(5), 1218-1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2717-6
MLA:
Anders, Katharina, et al. "Accuracy of automated software-guided detection of significant coronary artery stenosis by CT angiography: Comparison with invasive catheterisation." European Radiology 23.5 (2013): 1218-1225.
BibTeX: Download