Reproducibility of quantitative coronary calcium scoring from PET/CT attenuation maps: comparison to ECG-gated CT scans

Purpose We sought to evaluate inter-scan and inter-reader agreement of coronary calcium (CAC) scores obtained from dedicated, ECG-gated CAC scans (standard CAC scan) and ultra-low-dose, ungated computed tomography attenuation correction (CTAC) scans obtained routinely during cardiac PET/CT imaging. Methods From 2928 consecutive patients who underwent same-day Rb-82 cardiac PET/CT and gated CAC scan in the same hybrid PET/CT scanning session, we have randomly selected 200 cases with no history of revascularization. Standard CAC scans and ungated CTAC scans were scored by two readers using quantitative clinical software. We assessed the agreement between readers and between two scan protocols in 5 CAC categories (0, 1-10, 11-100, 101-400, and > 400) using Cohen's Kappa and concordance. Results Median age of patients was 70 (inter-quartile range: 63-77), and 46% were male. The inter-scan concordance index and Cohen's Kappa for readers 1 and 2 were 0.69; 0.75 (0.69, 0.81) and 0.72; 0.8 (0.75, 0.85) respectively. The inter-reader concordance index and Cohen's Kappa (95% confidence interval [CI]) was higher for standard CAC scans: 0.9 and 0.92 (0.89, 0.96), respectively, vs. for CTAC scans: 0.83 and 0.85 (0.79, 0.9) for CTAC scans (p = 0.02 for difference in Kappa). Most discordant readings between two protocols occurred for scans with low extent of calcification (CAC score < 100). Conclusion CAC can be quantitatively assessed on PET CTAC maps with good agreement with standard scans, however with limited sensitivity for small lesions. CAC scoring of CTAC can be performed routinely without modification of PET protocol and added radiation dose.

Automated summary

In this study, we evaluated the inter-scan and inter-reader agreement of coronary calcium (CAC) scores obtained from standard CAC scans and routine ultra-low-dose, ungated CTAC scans during cardiac PET/CT imaging. The results showed good agreement between readers and between the two scan protocols, with higher agreement observed for standard CAC scans. Most discordant readings occurred for scans with low extent of calcification.