Photon-Counting Detector Computed Tomography Versus Energy-Integrating Detector Computed Tomography for Coronary Artery Calcium Quantitation
Cynthia H. McCollough, Tim N. Winfree, Elnata F. Melka, Kishore Rajendran, Rickey E. Carter, Shuai Leng
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Photon-counting detector (PCD) computed tomography (CT) offers improved spatial and contrast resolution, which can impact quantitative measurements. This work aims to determine in human subjects the effect of dual-source PCD-CT on the quantitation of coronary artery calcification (CAC) compared with dual-source energy-integrating detector (EID) CT in both 1- and 3-mm images. METHODS: This prospective study enrolled patients receiving a clinical EID-CT CAC examination to undergo a research PCD-CT CAC examination. Axial images were reconstructed with a 512 × 512 matrix, 200-mm field of view, 3-mm section thickness/1.5-mm interval using a quantitative kernel (Qr36). Sharper kernels (Qr56/QIR strength 4 for PCD and Qr49/ADMIRE strength 5 for EID) were used to reconstruct images with 1-mm section thickness/0.5-mm interval. Pooled analysis was performed for all calcifications with nonzero values, and volume and Agatston scores were compared between EID-CT and PCD-CT. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: In 21 subjects (median age, 58 years; range, 50-75 years; 13 male [62%]) with a total of 42 calcified arteries detected at 3 mm and 46 calcified arteries at 1-mm images, EID-CT CAC volume and Agatston scores were significantly lower than those of PCD-CT ( P ≤ 0.001). At 3-mm thickness, the mean (standard deviation) volume and Agatston score for EID-CT were 55.5 (63.4) mm 3 and 63.8 (76.9), respectively, and 61.5 (69.4) mm 3 and 70.4 (85.3) for PCD-CT ( P = 0.0001 and P = 0.0013). At 1-mm thickness, the mean (standard deviation) volume and score for EID-CT were 50.0 (56.3) mm 3 and 61.1 (69.3), respectively, and 59.5 (63.9) mm 3 and 72.5 (79.9) for PCD-CT ( P < 0.0001 for both). The applied radiation dose (volume CT dose index) for the PCD-CT scan was 2.1 ± 0.6 mGy, which was 13% lower than for the EID-CT scan (2.4 ± 0.7 mGy, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Relative to EID-CT, PCD-CT demonstrated a small but significant increase in coronary artery calcium volume and Agatston score.