Estimating the accuracy of dual energy chest radiography for coronary calcium detection with lateral or anteroposterior orientations

PurposeCoronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring with CT has been studied as a risk stratification tool for cardiovascular disease. However, concerns remain from the radiation dose, economic expense, and incidental findings associated with this exam. Dual energy chest X-ray (DE CXR) has been proposed as an alternative, but validation of this technique remains limited. The purpose of this work was twofold: first, to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of DE CXR using simulation of patient datasets in a CAC screening cohort; second, to assess if sensitivity and specificity could be improved using a lateral instead of an anteroposterior (AP) orientation.MethodsWe started from a cohort of 73 CAC scoring CT exams after exclusions for metal wires, data truncation, or with age outside 40-75 years. The fraction of CT CAC scores in the validation set of 0, 1-99, 100-299, and 300+ were 36, 25, 14, and 26%, respectively. CT datasets were decomposed on a voxel-by-voxel basis into mixtures of water and calcium according to CT number. DE CXR images were simulated using polyenergetic forward projection with scatter estimated from Monte Carlo. We assumed a technique of 60 and 120kVp for the dual energy acquisition. The tube current was scaled such that the estimated radiation dose from DE CXR was 10 times less than CAC scoring CT. Patient motion was not simulated. Two readers read the validation set in a blinded, randomized fashion, and estimated the amount of CAC in each DE CXR image using a semiquantitative 4-point scale. Although patients present on a spectrum of CAC severity, in the primary analysis, sensitivity and specificity were calculated by dichotomizing patients into two categories of CT CAC (Agatston) scores of either 0-99 or 100+.ResultsFrom the lateral orientation, average sensitivity between two readers was 69% (range, 69-69%), specificity was 85% (range, 84-86%), and area under the curve (AUC) was 0.81 (range, 0.80-0.81). From the AP orientation, average sensitivity was 35% (range, 31-38%), average specificity ...