Coronary CT angiography has clocked impressive numbers to detect or rule out coronary artery stenosis. But do these numbers hold up when uninterpretable data are factored into the results? The answer is yes and no, according to a study presented at the annual meeting this month of the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance.
Coronary CT angiography has clocked impressive numbers to detect or rule out coronary artery stenosis. But do these numbers hold up when uninterpretable data are factored into the results? The answer is yes and no, according to a study presented at the annual meeting this month of the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance.
On a segment-by-segment basis, coronary CTA lost sensitivity when uninterpretable segments were factored into the analysis. On a per-patient basis, however, the resulting specificity did not suffer when missing or unintrepretable data were included.
"Coronary CTA is more robust at the patient level, suggesting ultimate clinical utility despite study biases," said lead author Dr. Ruth C. Carlos, a radiologist at the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor.
Carlos and colleagues reviewed the literature from 1991 to 2005 to evaluate the effect of missing data on sensitivity and specificity in coronary CTA studies.
They found 30 English-language peer-reviewed articles describing separate prospective observational studies. All patients underwent both CTA and conventional angiography. Four studies used 64-slice scanners, and the rest split nearly evenly between four- and 16-slice machines.
Researchers treated uninterpretable/missing data as false negatives to estimate the lower bounds of sensitivity and as false positives to estimate the lower bounds of specificity.
The published segment-level sensitivity and specificity for the various scanners were, respectively:
After missing/uninterpretable segments were included, the sensitivity and specificity markedly decreased for all scanners:
Patient-level data tell a different story. Sensitivity and specificity for detection of at least one-vessel stenosis were:
After missing/uninterpretable cases were included, sensitivity and specificity changed minimally:
At the patient analysis level, selection criteria used have resulted in a high prevalence of coronary artery disease. Coronary CTA trends toward better sensitivity than specificity, with imaging performance only minimally altered by missing/uninterpretable results bias, Carlos said.
For more information from the Diagnostic Imaging archives:
64-slice CT enters clinical practice realm
Coronary MRA struggles against success of CTA
Coronary CTA takes giant leap with 64-slice scanners
What is the Best Use of AI in CT Lung Cancer Screening?
April 18th 2025In comparison to radiologist assessment, the use of AI to pre-screen patients with low-dose CT lung cancer screening provided a 12 percent reduction in mean interpretation time with a slight increase in specificity and a slight decrease in the recall rate, according to new research.
The Reading Room: Racial and Ethnic Minorities, Cancer Screenings, and COVID-19
November 3rd 2020In this podcast episode, Dr. Shalom Kalnicki, from Montefiore and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, discusses the disparities minority patients face with cancer screenings and what can be done to increase access during the pandemic.
Can CT-Based AI Radiomics Enhance Prediction of Recurrence-Free Survival for Non-Metastatic ccRCC?
April 14th 2025In comparison to a model based on clinicopathological risk factors, a CT radiomics-based machine learning model offered greater than a 10 percent higher AUC for predicting five-year recurrence-free survival in patients with non-metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).
Could Lymph Node Distribution Patterns on CT Improve Staging for Colon Cancer?
April 11th 2025For patients with microsatellite instability-high colon cancer, distribution-based clinical lymph node staging (dCN) with computed tomography (CT) offered nearly double the accuracy rate of clinical lymph node staging in a recent study.