Literature DB >> 2488150

Precise measurement of vertebral bone density using computed tomography without the use of an external reference phantom.

S D Boden1, D J Goodenough, C D Stockham, E Jacobs, T Dina, R M Allman.   

Abstract

Bone density measurement by quantitative computed tomography (QCT) commonly uses an external reference phantom to decrease scan-to-scan and scanner-to-scanner variability. However, the peripheral location of these phantoms and other phantom variables is also responsible for a measurable degradation in accuracy and precision. Due to non-uniform artifacts such as beam hardening, scatter, and volume averaging, the ideal reference phantom should be as close to the target tissue as possible. This investigation developed and tested a computer program that uses paraspinal muscle and fat tissue as internal reference standards in an effort to eliminate the need for an external phantom. Because of their proximity, these internal reference tissues can be assumed to reflect more accurately the local changes in the x-ray spectra and scatter distribution at the target tissue. A user interactive computerized histogram plotting technique enabled the derivation of reproducible CT numbers for muscle, fat, and trabecular bone. Preliminary results indicate that the use of internal reference tissues with the histogram technique may improve reproducibility of scan-to-scan measurements as well as inter-scanner precision. Reproducibility studies on 165 images with intentional region-of-interest (ROI) mispositioning of 1.5, 2.5, or 3.5 mm yielded a precision of better than 1% for normals and 1% to 2% for osteoporotic patients--a twofold improvement over the precision from similar tests using the standard technique with an external reference phantom. Such improvements in precision are essential for QCT to be clinically useful as a noninvasive modality for measurement of the very small annual changes in bone mineral density.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2488150     DOI: 10.1007/bf03168013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  22 in total

1.  Factors affecting the use of quantitative information from a CT scanner.

Authors:  E C McCullough
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1977-07       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Quantitative computed tomography: update 1987.

Authors:  H K Genant; P Steiger; J E Block; C C Glueer; B Ettinger; S T Harris
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 4.333

3.  Quantitative computed tomography scanning for measurement of bone and bone marrow fat content. A comparison of single- and dual-energy techniques using a solid synthetic phantom.

Authors:  M M Goodsitt; D I Rosenthal
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 6.016

4.  Quantitative CT measurements: the effect of scatter acceptance and filter characteristics on the EMI 7070.

Authors:  R B Merritt; S G Chenery
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 5.  Quantitative CT for determination of bone mineral density: a review.

Authors:  C E Cann
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Two postprocessing CT techniques for determining the composition of trabecular bone.

Authors:  M M Goodsitt; D I Rosenthal; W R Reinus; J Coumas
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1987-03       Impact factor: 6.016

7.  Errors in measuring trabecular bone by computed tomography due to marrow and bone composition.

Authors:  R B Mazess
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 4.333

8.  Quantitative computed tomography for spinal density measurement. Factors affecting precision.

Authors:  D I Rosenthal; M A Ganott; G Wyshak; D M Slovik; S H Doppelt; R M Neer
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1985 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.016

9.  Nonlinear partial volume artifacts in x-ray computed tomography.

Authors:  G H Glover; N J Pelc
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1980 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Quantitative computed tomography for prediction of vertebral fracture risk.

Authors:  C E Cann; H K Genant; F O Kolb; B Ettinger
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 4.398

View more
  17 in total

Review 1.  Current methods and advances in bone densitometry.

Authors:  G Guglielmi; C C Gluer; S Majumdar; B A Blunt; H K Genant
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Feasibility of simultaneous computed tomographic colonography and fully automated bone mineral densitometry in a single examination.

Authors:  Ronald M Summers; Nicolai Baecher; Jianhua Yao; Jiamin Liu; Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Suvimol Hill
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2011 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.826

Review 3.  X-ray-based quantitative osteoporosis imaging at the spine.

Authors:  M T Löffler; N Sollmann; K Mei; A Valentinitsch; P B Noël; J S Kirschke; T Baum
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Simultaneous screening for osteoporosis at CT colonography: bone mineral density assessment using MDCT attenuation techniques compared with the DXA reference standard.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; Lawrence J Lee; Alejandro Muñoz del Rio; Travis Lauder; Richard J Bruce; Ron M Summers; B Dustin Pooler; Neil Binkley
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  Comparison of calibrated and uncalibrated bone mineral density by CT to DEXA in menopausal women.

Authors:  Y Miyabara; D Holmes; J Camp; V M Miller; A E Kearns
Journal:  Climacteric       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 3.005

6.  Variability in Flexion Extension Radiographs of the Lumbar Spine: A Comparison of Uncontrolled and Controlled Bending.

Authors:  Boyle Cheng; Anthony E Castellvi; Reginald J Davis; David C Lee; Morgan P Lorio; Richard E Prostko; Chip Wade
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-05-16

7.  Experimental implementation of a polyenergetic statistical reconstruction algorithm for a commercial fan-beam CT scanner.

Authors:  Joshua D Evans; Bruce R Whiting; David G Politte; Joseph A O'Sullivan; Paul F Klahr; Jeffrey F Williamson
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2013-01-21       Impact factor: 2.685

8.  Vertebral bone density in Icelandic women using quantitative computed tomography without an external reference phantom.

Authors:  H Gudmundsdottir; B Jonsdottir; S Kristinsson; A Johannesson; D Goodenough; G Sigurdsson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 9.  Fracture Prediction by Computed Tomography and Finite Element Analysis: Current and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Fjola Johannesdottir; Brett Allaire; Mary L Bouxsein
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 5.096

10.  Opportunistic application of phantom-less calibration methods for fracture risk prediction using QCT/FEA.

Authors:  Maria Prado; Sundeep Khosla; Christopher Chaput; Hugo Giambini
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.