Julian L Wichmann1, Christian Booz, Stefan Wesarg, Konstantinos Kafchitsas, Ralf W Bauer, J Matthias Kerl, Thomas Lehnert, Thomas J Vogl, M Fawad Khan. 1. From the University Hospital Frankfurt, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany (J.L.W., C.B., R.W.B., J.M.K., T.L., T.J.V., M.F.K.); Fraunhofer IGD, Cognitive Computing & Medical Imaging, Darmstadt, Germany (S.W.); and University Medical Center Mainz, Clinic and Policlinic for Orthopedics and Orthopedic Surgery, Mainz, Germany (K.K.).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of phantomless in vivo dual-energy computed tomography (CT)-based three-dimensional (3D) bone mineral density (BMD) assessment in comparison with dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. Data from clinically indicated dual-energy CT and DXA examinations within 2 months, comprising the lumbar spine of 40 patients, were included. By using automated dedicated postprocessing dual-energy CT software, the trabecular bone of lumbar vertebrae L1-L4 were analyzed and segmented. A mixed-effects model was used to assess the correlations between BMD values derived from dual-energy CT and DXA. RESULTS: One hundred sixty lumbar vertebrae were analyzed in 40 patients (mean age, 57.1 years; range, 24-85 years), 21 male (mean age, 54.3 years; range, 24-85 years) and 19 female (mean age, 58.5 years; range, 31-80 years). Mean BMD of L1-L4 determined with DXA was 0.995 g/cm(2), and 18 patients (45%) showed an osteoporotic BMD (T score less than -2.5) of at least two vertebrae. Mean dual-energy CT-based BMD of L1-L4 was 0.254 g/cm(3). Bland-Altman analysis with mixed effects demonstrated a lack of correlation between dual-energy CT-based and DXA-based BMD values, with a mean difference of 0.7441 and 95% limits of agreement of 0.7441 ± 0.4080. CONCLUSION: Dedicated postprocessing of dual-energy CT data allows for phantomless in vivo BMD assessment of the trabecular bone of lumbar vertebrae and enables freely rotatable color-coded 3D visualization of intravertebral BMD distribution.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of phantomless in vivo dual-energy computed tomography (CT)-based three-dimensional (3D) bone mineral density (BMD) assessment in comparison with dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. Data from clinically indicated dual-energy CT and DXA examinations within 2 months, comprising the lumbar spine of 40 patients, were included. By using automated dedicated postprocessing dual-energy CT software, the trabecular bone of lumbar vertebrae L1-L4 were analyzed and segmented. A mixed-effects model was used to assess the correlations between BMD values derived from dual-energy CT and DXA. RESULTS: One hundred sixty lumbar vertebrae were analyzed in 40 patients (mean age, 57.1 years; range, 24-85 years), 21 male (mean age, 54.3 years; range, 24-85 years) and 19 female (mean age, 58.5 years; range, 31-80 years). Mean BMD of L1-L4 determined with DXA was 0.995 g/cm(2), and 18 patients (45%) showed an osteoporotic BMD (T score less than -2.5) of at least two vertebrae. Mean dual-energy CT-based BMD of L1-L4 was 0.254 g/cm(3). Bland-Altman analysis with mixed effects demonstrated a lack of correlation between dual-energy CT-based and DXA-based BMD values, with a mean difference of 0.7441 and 95% limits of agreement of 0.7441 ± 0.4080. CONCLUSION: Dedicated postprocessing of dual-energy CT data allows for phantomless in vivo BMD assessment of the trabecular bone of lumbar vertebrae and enables freely rotatable color-coded 3D visualization of intravertebral BMD distribution.
Authors: Julian L Wichmann; Andrew D Hardie; U Joseph Schoepf; Lloyd M Felmly; Jonathan D Perry; Akos Varga-Szemes; Stefanie Mangold; Damiano Caruso; Christian Canstein; Thomas J Vogl; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Miriam A Bredella; Scott M Daley; Mannudeep K Kalra; J Keenan Brown; Karen K Miller; Martin Torriani Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Julian L Wichmann; Christian Booz; Stefan Wesarg; Ralf W Bauer; J Matthias Kerl; Sebastian Fischer; Thomas Lehnert; Thomas J Vogl; M Fawad Khan; Konstantinos Kafchitsas Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Tommaso D'Angelo; Giuseppe Cicero; Silvio Mazziotti; Giorgio Ascenti; Moritz H Albrecht; Simon S Martin; Ahmed E Othman; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Lawrence Lo; Scott Koenig; Natalie L Leong; Brian B Shiu; S Ashfaq Hasan; Mohit N Gilotra; Kenneth C Wang Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Christian Booz; Jochen Nöske; Lukas Lenga; Simon S Martin; Ibrahim Yel; Katrin Eichler; Tatjana Gruber-Rouh; Nicole Huizinga; Moritz H Albrecht; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 5.315