Coronary calcium scoring varied significantly between four different CT scanners (P=0.001), with no significant difference between iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection except in one scanner.
Does iterative reconstruction compared to filtered back projection affect coronary artery calcium scoring across different CT scanners in an in vitro phantom model?
Coronary calcium scores vary significantly across different CT scanner vendors, but the use of iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection does not significantly alter scores for most vendors.
p-value: p=0.001
Background The coronary artery calcium scoring (CCS) has been widely used for cardiac risk stratification for asymptomatic patients. Purpose To assess the reproducibility of CCS performed on four different computed tomography (CT) scanners, and compare the variability between two reconstruction algorithms, filtered back projection (FBP), and iterative reconstruction (IR). Material and Methods A CCS phantom was made from agar and contained 23 pieces of chicken bones. The phantom was repeatedly scanned using four different CT scanners: Toshiba; GE; Philips; and Siemens. Images were reconstructed using FBP and IR. Agatston and volume scores of total bone fragments were calculated and the overall differences between the instruments were evaluated using the Friedman test. Comparison of the Agatston and volume scores between the two reconstruction algorithms, for each instrument, was evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results The difference in the Agatston scores was significantly different between the four machines ( P = 0.001). The Toshiba scanner yielded the highest score followed by Philips, GE, and Siemens scanners. There was no difference in the CCS evaluated using the two reconstruction algorithms, except in case of the Siemens scanner ( P = 0.032). Conclusion CCS performed on different scanners varied significantly. In the Toshiba, Philips, and GE scanners, there was no significant difference in the CCS determined using either an IR or the FBP algorithm. In the Siemens scanner, applying the IR algorithm resulted in a slightly different scores, which might not be clinically significant.
Choi et al. (Wed,) conducted a other in Coronary artery calcium scoring. Different CT scanners and iterative reconstruction vs. Filtered back projection was evaluated on Agatston scores (p=0.001). Coronary calcium scoring varied significantly between four different CT scanners (P=0.001), with no significant difference between iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection except in one scanner.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: