Diagnostic Accuracy of 4 Commercially Available Semiautomatic Packages for Carotid Artery Stenosis Measurement on CTA

Gerard Borst, HA Marquering, M Kappelhof, Taihra Zadi, Anouk Dijk, PJ Nederkoorn, Robert Berg, Aad van der Lugt, CBLM Majoie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Semiautomatic measurement of ICA stenosis potentially increases observer reproducibility. In this study, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy and interobserver reproducibility of a commercially available semiautomatic ICA stenosis measurement on CTA and estimated the agreement among different software packages. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 141 arteries from 90 patients with TIA or ischemic stroke. Manual stenosis measurements were performed by 2 neuroradiologists. Semiautomatic measurements by using 4 methods (3mensio and comparable software from Philips, TeraRecon, and Siemens) were performed by 2 observers. Diagnostic accuracy was estimated by comparing semiautomatic with manual measurements. Interobserver reproducibility and agreement between different packages was assessed by calculation of the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement. False-negative classifications were retrospectively inspected by a neuroradiologist. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the diagnostic performance of the 4 semiautomatic methods. The sensitivity for detecting >= 50% and >= 70% degree of stenosis was between 76% and 82% and 46% and 62%, respectively. Specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy were between 92% and 97% and 85% and 90%, respectively. The interobserver intraclass correlation coefficient was between 0.83 and 0.96 for semiautomatic measurements and 0.81 for manual measurement. The limits of agreement between each pair of semiautomatic packages ranged from -18%-24% to -33%-31%. False-negative classifications were caused by ulcerative plaques and observer variation in stenosis and reference measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Semiautomatic methods have a low-to-good sensitivity and a good specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy. The high interobserver reproducibility makes semiautomatic stenosis measurement valuable for clinical practice, but semiautomatic measurements should be checked by an experienced radiologist.
Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Pages (from-to)1978-1987
Number of pages10
JournalAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology
Volume36
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Cite this