K Acu1, M Scheel, A S Issever. 1. Department of Radiology, Charite Campus Mitte, Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Our study has demonstrated that in contrast-enhanced multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT)-based bone density measurements, the scan delay time after contrast agent administration is a statistically significant variable for the derivation of quantitative computed tomography (QCT)-equivalent bone mineral density (BMD) values. INTRODUCTION: Earlier investigators have proposed to derive QCT-equivalent BMD values from contrast-enhanced MDCT scans by using a merely density-based conversion equation. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the scan delay after intravenous (IV) contrast agent administration might affect BMD values derived in this way. METHODS: A retrospective data analysis was performed on 198 subjects who underwent standardized biphasic MDCT. Average densities values (in Hounsfield units) of lumbar vertebral bodies 1 to 3 (L1-L3) were compared between phases I and II of the biphasic MDCT scan. Furthermore, QCT-equivalent BMD (BMDQCT) values were calculated using a previously published conversion equation. RESULTS: Paired t-test analysis revealed that IV contrast agent administration leads to a statistically significant increase (8.6 %; p < 0.0001) in overall density of L1-L3 from phases I to II. Moreover, comparison of BMDQCT values between phases I and II reveals a change from osteoporotic to osteopenic in 4.5 % of the study population and from osteopenic to normal for 11.1 % of the subjects. Furthermore, it was revealed that the density increase from phases I to II shows a weak, yet statistically significant (p < 0.001) age dependency. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the use of a mere density-based conversion equation for deriving BMDQCT from MDCT scans ignores time dependency as an important variable. Furthermore, our results indicate that the actual age-dependent BMD itself might be another relevant variable that needs to be included in a MDCT-to-QCT conversion equation.
UNLABELLED: Our study has demonstrated that in contrast-enhanced multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT)-based bone density measurements, the scan delay time after contrast agent administration is a statistically significant variable for the derivation of quantitative computed tomography (QCT)-equivalent bone mineral density (BMD) values. INTRODUCTION: Earlier investigators have proposed to derive QCT-equivalent BMD values from contrast-enhanced MDCT scans by using a merely density-based conversion equation. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the scan delay after intravenous (IV) contrast agent administration might affect BMD values derived in this way. METHODS: A retrospective data analysis was performed on 198 subjects who underwent standardized biphasic MDCT. Average densities values (in Hounsfield units) of lumbar vertebral bodies 1 to 3 (L1-L3) were compared between phases I and II of the biphasic MDCT scan. Furthermore, QCT-equivalent BMD (BMDQCT) values were calculated using a previously published conversion equation. RESULTS: Paired t-test analysis revealed that IV contrast agent administration leads to a statistically significant increase (8.6 %; p < 0.0001) in overall density of L1-L3 from phases I to II. Moreover, comparison of BMDQCT values between phases I and II reveals a change from osteoporotic to osteopenic in 4.5 % of the study population and from osteopenic to normal for 11.1 % of the subjects. Furthermore, it was revealed that the density increase from phases I to II shows a weak, yet statistically significant (p < 0.001) age dependency. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the use of a mere density-based conversion equation for deriving BMDQCT from MDCT scans ignores time dependency as an important variable. Furthermore, our results indicate that the actual age-dependent BMD itself might be another relevant variable that needs to be included in a MDCT-to-QCT conversion equation.
Authors: Andreas Biffar; Steven Sourbron; Olaf Dietrich; Gerwin Schmidt; Michael Ingrisch; Maximilian F Reiser; Andrea Baur-Melnyk Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2010-06-30 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Thomas Baum; Dirk Müller; Martin Dobritz; Petra Wolf; Ernst J Rummeny; Thomas M Link; Jan S Bauer Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2012-04-07 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Cynthia L Leibson; Anna N A Tosteson; Sherine E Gabriel; Jeanine E Ransom; L Joseph Melton Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: James F Griffith; David K W Yeung; Polly H Tsang; Kai C Choi; Timothy C Y Kwok; Anil T Ahuja; Kwok S Leung; Ping C Leung Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Yi-Xiang J Wang; Ya-Feng Zhang; James F Griffith; Hua Zhou; David K W Yeung; Timothy C Kwok; Ling Qin; Anil T Ahuja Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: P J Pickhardt; T Lauder; B D Pooler; A Muñoz Del Rio; H Rosas; R J Bruce; N Binkley Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Sebastian Rühling; Fernando Navarro; Anjany Sekuboyina; Malek El Husseini; Thomas Baum; Bjoern Menze; Rickmer Braren; Claus Zimmer; Jan S Kirschke Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-10-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: F Johannesdottir; B Allaire; D L Kopperdahl; T M Keaveny; S Sigurdsson; M A Bredella; D E Anderson; E J Samelson; D P Kiel; V G Gudnason; M L Bouxsein Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2020-08-03 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Tim Kobes; Arthur Sweet; Sophie Verstegen; Marijn Houwert; Wouter Veldhuis; Luke Leenen; Pim de Jong; Mark van Baal Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-03-16