AI Evaluation of Stenosis on Coronary CTA, Comparison With Quantitative Coronary Angiography and Fractional Flow Reserve: A CREDENCE Trial Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Clinical reads of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA), especially by less experienced readers, may result in overestimation of coronary artery disease stenosis severity compared with expert interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based solutions applied to coronary CTA may overcome these limitations. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the performance for detection and grading of coronary stenoses using artificial intelligence-enabled quantitative coronary computed tomography (AI-QCT) angiography analyses to core lab-interpreted coronary CTA, core lab quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), and invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). METHODS: Coronary CTA, FFR, and QCA data from 303 stable patients (64 ± 10 years of age, 71% male) from the CREDENCE (Computed TomogRaphic Evaluation of Atherosclerotic DEtermiNants of Myocardial IsChEmia) trial were retrospectively analyzed using an Food and Drug Administration-cleared cloud-based software that performs AI-enabled coronary segmentation, lumen and vessel wall determination, plaque quantification and characterization, and stenosis determination. RESULTS: Disease prevalence was high, with 32.0%, 35.0%, 21.0%, and 13.0% demonstrating ≥50% stenosis in 0, 1, 2, and 3 coronary vessel territories, respectively. Average AI-QCT analysis time was 10.3 ± 2.7 minutes. AI-QCT evaluation demonstrated per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 94%, 68%, 81%, 90%, and 84%, respectively, for ≥50% stenosis, and of 94%, 82%, 69%, 97%, and 86%, respectively, for detection of ≥70% stenosis. There was high correlation between stenosis detected on AI-QCT evaluation vs QCA on a per-vessel and per-patient basis (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.73 and 0.73, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). False positive AI-QCT findings were noted in in 62 of 848 (7.3%) vessels (stenosis of ≥70% by AI-QCT and QCA of <70%); however, 41 (66.1%) of these had an FFR of <0.8. CONCLUSIONS: A novel AI-based evaluation of coronary CTA enables rapid and accurate identification and exclusion of high-grade stenosis and with close agreement to blinded, core lab-interpreted quantitative coronary angiography. (Computed TomogRaphic Evaluation of Atherosclerotic DEtermiNants of Myocardial IsChEmia [CREDENCE]; NCT02173275).

The effect of scan and patient parameters on the diagnostic performance of AI for detecting coronary stenosis on coronary CT angiography.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) scanning, scan preparation, contrast, and patient based parameters influence the diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) based analysis software for identifying coronary lesions with ≥50% stenosis. BACKGROUND: CCTA is a noninvasive imaging modality that provides diagnostic and prognostic benefit to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The use of AI enabled quantitative CCTA (AI-QCT) analysis software enhances our diagnostic and prognostic ability, however, it is currently unclear whether software performance is influenced by CCTA scanning parameters. METHODS: CCTA and quantitative coronary CT (QCT) data from 303 stable patients (64 ± 10 years, 71% male) from the derivation arm of the CREDENCE Trial were retrospectively analyzed using an FDA-cleared cloud-based software that performs AI-enabled coronary segmentation, lumen and vessel wall determination, plaque quantification and characterization, and stenosis determination. The algorithm's diagnostic performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) for detecting coronary lesions of ≥50% stenosis were determined based on concordance with QCA measurements and subsequently compared across scanning parameters (including scanner vendor, model, single vs dual source, tube voltage, dose length product, gating technique, timing method), scan preparation technique (use of beta blocker, use and dose of nitroglycerin), contrast administration parameters (contrast type, infusion rate, iodine concentration, contrast volume) and patient parameters (heart rate and BMI). RESULTS: Within the patient cohort, 13% demonstrated ≥50% stenosis in 3 vessel territories, 21% in 2 vessel territories, 35% in 1 vessel territory while 32% had <50% stenosis in all vessel territories evaluated by QCA. Average AI analysis time was 10.3 ± 2.7 min. On a per vessel basis, there were significant differences only in sensitivity for ≥50% stenosis based on contrast type (iso-osmolar 70.0% vs non isoosmolar 92.1% p = 0.0345) and iodine concentration (<350 mg/ml 70.0%, 350-369 mg/ml 90.0%, 370-400 mg/ml 90.0%, >400 mg/ml 95.2%; p = 0.0287) in the context of low injection flow rates. On a per patient basis there were no significant differences in AI diagnostic performance measures across all measured scanner, scan technique, patient preparation, contrast, and individual patient parameters. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of AI-QCT analysis software for detecting moderate to high grade stenosis are unaffected by commonly used CCTA scanning parameters and across a range of common scanning, scanner, contrast and patient variables. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: An AI-enabled quantitative CCTA (AI-QCT) analysis software has been validated as an effective tool for the identification, quantification and characterization of coronary plaque and stenosis through comparison to blinded expert readers and quantitative coronary angiography. However, it is unclear whether CCTA screening parameters related to scanner parameters, scan technique, contrast volume and rate, radiation dose, or a patient's BMI or heart rate at time of scan affect the software's diagnostic measures for detection of moderate to high grade stenosis. AI performance measures were unaffected across a broad range of commonly encountered scanner, patient preparation, scan technique, intravenous contrast and patient parameters.

Imaging of Benign Adnexal Disease.

This article provides an overview of the imaging evaluation of benign ovarian and adnexal masses in premenopausal and postmenopausal women and lesions discovered during pregnancy. Current imaging techniques are discussed, including pitfalls and differential diagnosis when necessary, as well as management. It also reviews the now well-established American College of Radiology (ACR)/Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound consensus guidelines and covers the more recently introduced Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System by the ACR and the recently published ADNEx Scoring System.