Cited by 43Cardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentRadiation Dose and Imaging

Reliable categorisation of visual scoring of coronary artery calcification on low-dose CT for lung cancer screening: validation with the standard Agatston score

Huang, Yi-Luan, Wu, Fu-Zong, Wang, Yen-Chi, Ju, Yu-Jeng, Mar, Guang-Yuan, Chuo, Chiung-Chen, Lin, Huey-Shyan, Wu, Ming-Ting·2013·European Radiology

Abstract

Objectives To validate the reliability of the visual coronary artery calcification score (VCACS) on low-dose CT (LDCT) for concurrent screening of CAC and lung cancer. Methods We enrolled 401 subjects receiving LDCT for lung cancer screening and ECG-gated CT for the Agatston score (AS). LDCT was reconstructed with 3- and 5-mm slice thickness (LDCT-3mm and LDCT-5mm respectively) for VCACS to obtain VCACS-3mm and VCACS-5mm respectively. After a training session comprising 32 cases, two observers performed four-scale VCACS (absent, mild, moderate, severe) of 369 data sets independently, the results were compared with four-scale AS (0, 1-100, 101-400, >400). Results CACs were present in 39.6 % (146/369) of subjects. The sensitivity of VCACS-3mm was higher than for VCACS-5mm (83.6 % versus 74.0 %). The median of AS of the 24 false-negative cases in VCACS-3mm was 2.3 (range 1.1-21.1). The false-negative rate for detecting AS ≥ 10 on LDCT-3mm was 1.9 %. VCACS-3mm had higher concordance with AS than VCACS-5mm (k = 0.813 versus k = 0.685). An extended test of VCACS-3mm for four junior observers showed high inter-observer reliability (intra-class correlation = 0.90) and good concordance with AS (k = 0.662-0.747). Conclusions This study validated the reliability of VCACS on LDCT for lung cancer screening and showed that LDCT-3mm was more feasible than LDCT-5mm for CAD risk stratification. Key points • Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) rarely misses significant coronary artery calcific…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00330-012-2726-5

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, Y.-L., Wu, F.-Z., Wang, Y.-C., Ju, Y.-J., Mar, G.-Y., Chuo, C.-C., Lin, H.-S., & Wu, M.-T.
Affiliations
  • Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital (TW)
  • National Taiwan University (TW)
  • Fooyin University (TW)
Venue
European Radiology
Published
2012-12-14
Volume
23
Issue
5
Pages
1226-1233
ISSN
  • 0938-7994 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1084
OpenAlex
W2068989243
Cited by
43
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
Keywords
coronary artery calcification, low-dose CT, lung cancer screening, Agatston score, coronary artery disease risk stratification, inter-rater reliability, slice thickness, concordance
MeSH terms
Calcinosis, Coronary Artery Disease, Female, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Sensitivity and Specificity, Taiwan, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Reproducibility of Results, Comorbidity, Incidence, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review