To evaluate the performance of photon-counting detector (PCD) computed tomography (CT) for coronary artery calcium (CAC) score imaging at standard and reduced radiation doses compared to conventional energy-integrating detector (EID) CT. A dedicated cardiac CT phantom, ten ex vivo human hearts, and ten asymptomatic volunteers underwent matched EID and PCD CT scans at different dose settings without ECG gating. CAC score, contrast, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated in the cardiac CT phantom. CAC score accuracy and reproducibility was assessed in the ex vivo hearts. Standard radiation dose (120 kVp, reference mAs = 80) in vivo CAC scans were compared against dose-reduced CAC scans (75% dose reduction; reference mAs = 20) for image quality and CAC score reproducibility. Interstudy agreement was assessed by using intraclass correlation (ICC), linear regression, and Bland–Altman analysis with 95% confidence interval limits of agreement (LOA). Calcium-soft tissue contrast and CNR were significantly higher for the PCD CAC scans in the cardiac CT phantom (all P < 0.01). Ex vivo hearts: CAC score reproducibility was significantly higher for the PCD scans at the lowest dose setting (50 mAs) (P = 0.002); score accuracy was similar for both detector systems at all dose settings. In vivo scans: the agreement between standard dose and low dose CAC score was significantly better for the PCD than for the EID with narrower LOA in Bland–Altman analysis, linear regression slopes closer to 1 (0.96 vs. 0.84), and higher ICC values (0.98 vs. 0.93, respectively). Phantom and in vivo human studies showed PCD may significantly improve CAC score image quality and/or reduce CAC score radiation dose while maintaining diagnostic image quality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This study was supported by the NIH intramural research program (ZIACL090019; ZIAEB000072), and a collaborative research agreement with Siemens Healthcare GmbH (Forchheim, Germany).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Detrano R, Guerci AD, Carr JJ et al (2008) Coronary calcium as a predictor of coronary events in four racial or ethnic groups. N Engl J Med 358:1336–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenland P, LaBree L, Azen SP et al (2004) Coronary artery calcium score combined with Framingham score for risk prediction in asymptomatic individuals. JAMA 291:210–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim KP, Einstein AJ, de González AB (2009) Coronary artery calcification screening: estimated radiation dose and cancer risk. Arch Intern Med 169:1188–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin W-H, Lu B, Hou Z-H et al (2013) Detection of coronary artery stenosis with sub-milliSievert radiation dose by prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch spiral CT angiography and iterative reconstruction. Eur Radiol 23:2927–2933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willemink MJ, Persson M, Pourmorteza A et al (2018) Photon-counting CT: technical principles and clinical prospects. Radiology 289:293–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutjahr R, Halaweish AF, Yu Z et al (2016) Human imaging with photon counting-based computed tomography at clinical dose levels: contrast-to-noise ratio and cadaver studies. Investig Radiol 51:421–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symons R, Cork TE, Sahbaee P et al (2016) Low-dose lung cancer screening with photon-counting CT: a feasibility study. Phys Med Biol 62:202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symons R, Pourmorteza A, Sandfort V et al (2017) Feasibility of dose-reduced chest CT with photon-counting detectors: initial results in humans. Radiology 285:980–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pourmorteza A, Symons R, Reich DS et al (2017) Photon-counting CT of the brain: in vivo human results and image-quality assessment. Am J Neuroradiol 38:2257–2263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer M, Haubenreisser H, Schoepf UJ et al (2014) Closing in on the K edge: coronary CT angiography at 100, 80, and 70 kV—initial comparison of a second-versus a third-generation dual-source CT system. Radiology 273:373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandfort V, Lima JAC, Bluemke DA (2015) Noninvasive imaging of atherosclerotic plaque progression. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 8:e003316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symons R, Morris JZ, Wu CO et al (2016) Coronary CT angiography: variability of CT scanners and readers in measurement of plaque volume. Radiology 281:737–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahesh M, Zimmerman SL, Fishman EK (2014) Radiation dose shift in relative proportion: the case of coronary artery calcium studies. J Am Coll Radiol 11:634–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebhard C, Fiechter M, Fuchs TA et al (2013) Coronary artery calcium scoring: influence of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction using 64-MDCT. Int J Cardiol 167:2932–2937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willemink MJ, den Harder AM, Foppen W et al (2016) Finding the optimal dose reduction and iterative reconstruction level for coronary calcium scoring. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 10:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muenzel D, Daerr H, Proksa R et al (2017) Simultaneous dual-contrast multi-phase liver imaging using spectral photon-counting computed tomography: a proof-of-concept study. Eur Radiol Exp 1:25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cormode DP, Si-Mohamed S, Bar-Ness D et al (2017) Multicolor spectral photon-counting computed tomography: in vivo dual contrast imaging with a high count rate scanner. Sci Rep 7:4784CrossRefGoogle Scholar