Search

Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated. To improve timely fracture risk assessment optimized densitometry methods are required such as opportunistic spinal quantitative computed tomography (QCT). However, it is unclear how to best calibrate these scans and correct for potential scanner drift of QCT when used for monitoring bone mineral density (BMD) changes. We compared gold standard simultaneous calibration with asynchronous calibration methods, assessing mid-term (12 weeks) and long-term (1.5 years) reproducibility of BMD measurements. Cortical and trabecular compartments of the European Spine Phantom were studied with ten different protocols including low dose and high resolution (HR)-modes. Based on weekly phantom data, we compared simultaneous calibration to asynchronous single (termed global) or monthly calibration. The accuracy was better for trabecular measurements than for cortical measurements for all calibration methods. Reproducibility was excellent for all methods and slightly better for asynchronous than for simultaneous calibration both for trabecular and cortical bone. For HR protocols, reproducibility was better than for low dose measurements. In trabecular compartments averaged HR-BMD remained stable for global (− 0.1%/year, ns) but not for simultaneous calibration (− 1.5%/year, p < 0.001). No significant drifts could be detected for averaged low dose BMD (− 0.9 to + 0.8%/year) for either calibration method. Our data suggest that with regard to precision and accuracy measurements with asynchronous calibration are suitable for vertebral BMD assessment (no contrast agents) in clinical practice. Regular (e.g., monthly) stability tests using a calibration phantom could assure long term stability of at least 1 year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Osteoporosis is a systemic bone disease which can increase the risk of osteoporotic fractures. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is considered as the clinical standard for diagnosing osteoporosis by detecting the bone mineral density (BMD) in patients, but it has flaws in distinguishing between calcification and other degenerative diseases, thus leading to inaccurate BMD levels in subjects. Mindways quantitative computed tomography (Mindways QCT) is a classical QCT system. Similar to DXA, Mindways QCT can directly present the density of trabecular bone, vascular or tissue calcification; therefore, it is more accurate and sensitive than DXA and has been widely applied in clinic to evaluate osteoporosis. iCare QCT osteodensitometry was a new phantom-based QCT system, recently developed by iCare Inc. (China). It has been gradually applied in clinic by its superiority of taking 3-dimensional BMD of bone and converting BMD values to T value automatically. This study aimed at evaluating the osteoporosis detection rate of iCare QCT, compared with synchronous Mindways QCT (USA). Methods In this study, 131 patients who underwent hip phantom-based CT scan were included. Bone mineral density (BMD) of the unified region of interests (ROI) defined at the European spine phantom (ESP, German QRM) including L1 (low), L2 (medium), and L3 (high) vertebral bodies was detected for QCT quality control and horizontal calibration. Every ESP scan were taken for 10 times, and the mean BMD values measured by iCare QCT and Mindways QCT were compared. Hip CT scan was conducted with ESP as calibration individually. T-scores gained from iCare QCT and Mindways QCT were analyzed with Pearson correlation test. The detection rates of osteoporosis were compared between iCare QCT and Mindways QCT. The unified region of interests (ROI) was delineated in the QCT software. Results The results showed that there was no significant difference between iCare QCT and Mindways QCT in the evaluation of L1, L2, and L3 vertebrae bodies in ESP. A strong correlation between iCare QCT and Mindways QCT in the assessment of hip T-score was found. It was illustrated that iCare QCT had a higher detection rate of osteoporosis with the assessment of hip T-score than Mindways QCT did. In patients

Background: Osteoporosis is a systemic bone disease which can increase the risk of osteoporotic fractures. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is considered as the clinical standard for diagnosing osteoporosis by detecting the bone mineral density (BMD) in patients, but it has flaws in distinguishing between calcification and other degenerative diseases, thus leading to inaccurate BMD levels in subjects. Mindways quantitative computed tomography (Mindways QCT) is a classical QCT system. Similar to DXA, Mindways QCT can directly present the density of trabecular bone, vascular or tissue calcification; therefore, it is more accurate and sensitive than DXA and has been widely applied in clinic to evaluate osteoporosis. iCare QCT osteodensitometry was a new phantom-based QCT system, recently developed by iCare Inc. (China). It has been gradually applied in clinic by its superiority of taking 3-dimensional BMD of bone and converting BMD values to T value automatically. This study aimed at evaluating the osteoporosis detection rate of iCare QCT, compared with synchronous Mindways QCT (USA). Methods: In this study, 131 patients who underwent hip phantom-based CT scan were included. Bone mineral density (BMD) of the unified region of interests (ROI) defined at the European spine phantom (ESP, German QRM) including L1 (low), L2 (medium), and L3 (high) vertebral bodies was detected for QCT quality control and horizontal calibration. Every ESP scan were taken for 10 times, and the mean BMD values measured by iCare QCT and Mindways QCT were compared. Hip CT scan was conducted with ESP as calibration individually. T-scores gained from iCare QCT and Mindways QCT were analyzed with Pearson correlation test. The detection rates of osteoporosis were compared between iCare QCT and Mindways QCT. The unified region of interests (ROI) was delineated in the QCT software. Results: The results showed that there was no significant difference between iCare QCT and Mindways QCT in the evaluation of L1, L2, and L3 vertebrae bodies in ESP. A strong correlation between iCare QCT and Mindways QCT in the assessment of hip T-score was found. It was illustrated that iCare QCT had a higher detection rate of osteoporosis with the assessment of hip T-score than Mindways QCT did. In patients < 50 years subgroup, the detection rate of osteoporosis with iCare QCT and Mindways QCT was equal. In patients ≥ 50 years subgroup, the detection rate of osteoporosis with iCare QCT (35/92, 38.0%) was higher than that with Mindways QCT. In female subgroup, the detection rate of osteoporosis with iCare QCT was significantly higher than Mindways QCT. In male subgroup, the detection rate of osteoporosis with iCare QCT was also markedly higher than Mindways QCT. The detection rate of osteoporosis by iCare QCT was higher than Mindways QCT with hip bone assessment. Of course, the results of the present study remain to be further verified by multicenter studies in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mingyue Wang, Yan Wu, Yue Zhou, Junqiang Dong, Shenshen Hu, Ping Hou, Jianbo Gao Department of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, People’s Republic of ChinaCorrespondence: Jianbo Gao, Email cjr.gaojianbo@vip.163.comIntroduction: Early detection and treatment of osteoporosis through bone mineral density (BMD) measurement could aid in the prevention of osteoporosis-related fractures. We aimed to assess the parameter of dual-energy spectral CT (DesCT) consistency with BMD determination using quantitative computed tomography (QCT), thereby establishing a basis for further DesCT application for BMD determination.Methods: We subjected the European spine phantom, which contains three vertebral bodies (V1, V2, and V3), to DesCT with different radiation doses. The basis material pairs were hydroxyapatite (water), calcium (water), and hydroxyapatite (fat). Additionally, the medical records of 152 patients who underwent QCT and DesCT for chest scans in a two-month period were reviewed to measure BMD values.Results: No significant differences were found in the basis pair values of the V1, V2, or V3 vertebrae under different radiation doses in the phantom; in particular, the hydroxyapatite (water), hydroxyapatite (fat), relative error values of V1, V2, and V3 under different radiation doses were not significantly different (all p > 0.05). For patients, the hydroxyapatite (water), hydroxyapatite (fat), and hydroxyapatite (average) values measured by DesCT had a significant correlation with BMD measured by QCT Among 242 vertebrae (152 T12 and 90 L1 vertebrae), there was no significant difference between the BMD measured by QCT and the HAP (average) measured by DesCT (p = 0.071). The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) value was 0.925 between the HAP (average) and HAP (average) with DesCT and BMD measured by QCT (p < 0.001). Bland-Altman diagram indicated that both measurements were in good agreement.Discussion: We showed that BMD values measured by DesCT were stable and repeatable under different radiation doses. DesCT and QCT measurements of human BMD were highly correlated. Thus, DesCT-based BMD assessment of the spine in a clinical setting could be considered feasible.Keywords: dual-energy spectral computed tomography, quantitative computed tomography, bone mineral density, European spine phantom, spine

Background and purpose: To investigate the image quality and accurate bone mineral density (BMD) on quantitative CT (QCT) for osteoporosis screening by deep-learning image reconstruction (DLIR) based on a multi-phantom and patient study. Materials and methods: High-contrast spatial resolution, low-contrast detectability, modulation function test (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS), and image noise were evaluated for physical image quality on Caphan 500 phantom. Three calcium hydroxyapatite (HA) inserts were used for accurate BMD measurement on European Spine Phantom (ESP). CT images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-veo 50% (ASiR-V50%), and three levels of DLIR(L/M/H). Subjective evaluation of the image high-contrast spatial resolution and lowcontrast detectability were compared visually by qualified radiologists, whilst the statistical difference in the objective evaluation of the image high-contrast spatial resolution and low-contrast detectability, image noise, and relative measurement error were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Cohen's kappa coefficient (k) was performed to determine the interobserver agreement in qualitative evaluation between two radiologists. Results: Overall, for three levels of DLIR, 50% MTF was about 4.50 (lp/cm), better than FBP (4.12 lp/cm) and ASiR-V50% (4.00 lp/cm); the 2 mm lowcontrast object was clearly resolved at a 0.5% contrast level, while 3mm at FBP and ASiR-V50%. As the strength level decreased and radiation dose increased, DLIR at three levels showed a higher NPS peak frequency and lower noise level, leading to leftward and rightward shifts, respectively. Measured L1, L2, and L3 were slightly lower than that of nominal HA inserts (44.8, 95.9, 194.9 versus 50.2, 100.6, 199.2mg/cm³) with a relative measurement error of 9.84%, 4.08%, and 2.60%. Coefficients of variance for the L1, L2, and L3 HA inserts were 1.51%, 1.41%, and 1.18%. DLIR-M and DLIR-H scored significantly better than ASiRV50% in image noise (4.83 ± 0.34, 4.50 ± 0.50 versus 4.17 ± 0.37), image contrast (4.67 ± 0.73, 4.50 ± 0.70 versus 3.80 ± 0.99), small structure visibility (4.83 ± 0.70, 4.17 ± 0.73 versus 3.83 ± 1.05), image sharpness (3.83 ± 1.12, 3.53 ± 0.90 versus 3.27 ± 1.16), and artifacts (3.83 ± 0.90, 3.42 ± 0.37 versus 3.10 ± 0.83). The CT value, image noise, contrast noise ratio, and image artifacts in DLIR-M and DLIR-H outperformed ASiR-V50% and FBP (P<0.001), whilst it showed no statistically significant between DLIR-L and ASiR-V50% (P>0.05). The prevalence of osteoporosis was 74 (24.67%) in women and 49 (11.79%) in men, whilst the osteoporotic vertebral fracture rate was 26 (8.67%) in women and (5.29%) in men. Conclusion: Image quality with DLIR was high-qualified without affecting the accuracy of BMD measurement. It has a potential clinical utility in osteoporosis screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We describe a multicenter study using the European Spine Phantom (ESP) to compare the accuracy, linearity and precision of QCT measurements of spine vBMD between different brands of scanner, different models of the same brand and identical units of the same model. Ten scans of the same ESP with repositioning were performed on forty CT scanners from five manufacturers in different hospitals across China, all calibrated with the Mindways QCT system. The three ESP vertebral bodies simulating low (L1), medium (L2) and high (L3) vBMD and their average (L1-3 vBMD) were compared with phantom values. Linearity was assessed using the standard error of the estimate derived from linear regression. Precision errors were expressed as the standard deviation of the ten measurements on each scanner. Median (IQR) vBMD over all forty CT scanners compared with phantom values were: L1: 52.2 (49.9−56.4) vs 51.0; L2: 104.4 (101.2−108.6) vs 102.2; L3: 201.4 (195.0−204.9) vs 200.4; L1-3: 119.3 (116.6−123.2) vs 117.9 mg/cm3. Statistically significant differences in L1-3 vBMD were found between different brands (p = 0.005) and between different models of the same brand and identical units of the same model (both p < 0.001). Cross-calibration using linear regression gave a good fit for all forty systems with a median standard error of the estimate of 1.7 mg/cm3. The median precision error for L1-3 vBMD was 0.61 mg/cm3. Statistically significant differences in spine vBMD measurements between different scanners reinforce the importance of cross-calibration in multi-center studies. Cross-calibration can be reliably performed using linear regression equations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to investigate variations in bone density between 16 European populations, 13 of which were participants in the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study (EVOS). Men and women aged 50–80 years were recruited randomly from local population registers, stratified in 5-year age bands. The other three centres recruited similarly. Random samples of 20–100% of EVOS subjects were invited for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) densitometry of the lumbar spine and/or proximal femur using Hologic, Lunar or Norland pencil beam machines or, in one centre, a Sopha fan-beam machine. Cross-calibration of the different machines was undertaken using the European Spine Phantom prototype (ESPp). Highly significant differences in mean bone density were demonstrated between centres, giving rise to between-centre SDs in bone density that were about a quarter of a population SD. These differences persisted when centres using Hologic machines and centres using Lunar machines were considered separately. The centres were ranked differently according to whether male or female subjects were being considered and according to site of measurement (L2–4, femoral neck or femoral trochanter). As expected, bone mineral density (BMD) had a curvilinear relationship with age, and apparent rates of decrease slowed as age advanced past 50 years in both sexes. In the spine, not only did male BMD usually appear to increase with age, but there was a highly significant difference between centres in the age effect in both sexes, suggesting a variability in the impact of osteoarthritis between centres. Weight was consistently positively associated with BMD, but the effects of height and armspan were less consistent. Logarithmic transformation was needed to normalize the regressions of BMD on the independent variates, and after transformation, all sites except the femoral neck in females showed significant increases in SD with age. Interestingly, the effect of increasing weight was to decrease dispersion in proximal femur measurements in both sexes, further accentuating the tendency in women for low body mass index to be associated with osteoporosis as defined by densitometry. It is concluded that there are major differences between BMD values in European population samples which, with variations in anthro-pometric variables, have the potential to contribute substantially to variations in rates of osteoporotic fracture risk in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]