Literature DB >> 25001172

Inter-scanner differences in in vivo QCT measurements of the density and strength of the proximal femur remain after correction with anthropomorphic standardization phantoms.

R Dana Carpenter1, Isra Saeed2, Serena Bonaretti2, Carole Schreck2, Joyce H Keyak3, Timothy Streeper2, Tamara B Harris4, Thomas F Lang2.   

Abstract

In multicenter studies and longitudinal studies that use two or more different quantitative computed tomography (QCT) imaging systems, anthropomorphic standardization phantoms (ASPs) are used to correct inter-scanner differences and allow pooling of data. In this study, in vivo imaging of 20 women on two imaging systems was used to evaluate inter-scanner differences in hip integral BMD (iBMD), trabecular BMD (tBMD), cortical BMD (cBMD), femoral neck yield moment (My) and yield force (Fy), and finite-element derived strength of the femur under stance (FEstance) and fall (FEfall) loading. Six different ASPs were used to derive inter-scanner correction equations. Significant (p<0.05) inter-scanner differences were detected in all measurements except My and FEfall, and no ASP-based correction was able to reduce inter-scanner variability to corresponding levels of intra-scanner precision. Inter-scanner variability was considerably higher than intra-scanner precision, even in cases where the mean inter-scanner difference was statistically insignificant. A significant (p<0.01) effect of body size on inter-scanner differences in BMD was detected, demonstrating a need to address the effects of body size on QCT measurements. The results of this study show that significant inter-scanner differences in QCT-based measurements of BMD and bone strength can remain even when using an ASP.
Copyright © 2014 IPEM. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomechanics; Bone mineral density; Hip; Quantitative computed tomography

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25001172      PMCID: PMC4589175          DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.06.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Eng Phys        ISSN: 1350-4533            Impact factor:   2.242


  26 in total

1.  Automated registration of hip and spine for longitudinal QCT studies: integration with 3D densitometric and structural analysis.

Authors:  Wenjun Li; Miki Sode; Isra Saeed; Thomas Lang
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2005-09-30       Impact factor: 4.398

2.  Multi-detector row CT attenuation measurements: assessment of intra- and interscanner variability with an anthropomorphic body CT phantom.

Authors:  Bernard A Birnbaum; Nicole Hindman; Julie Lee; James S Babb
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Volumetric quantitative computed tomography of the proximal femur: precision and relation to bone strength.

Authors:  T F Lang; J H Keyak; M W Heitz; P Augat; Y Lu; A Mathur; H K Genant
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 4.398

4.  Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques.

Authors:  C C Glüer; G Blake; Y Lu; B A Blunt; M Jergas; H K Genant
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  European semi-anthropomorphic spine phantom for the calibration of bone densitometers: assessment of precision, stability and accuracy. The European Quantitation of Osteoporosis Study Group.

Authors:  J Pearson; J Dequeker; M Henley; J Bright; J Reeve; W Kalender; A M Laval-Jeantet; P Rüegsegger; D Felsenberg; J Adams
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Predicting proximal femoral strength using structural engineering models.

Authors:  Joyce H Keyak; Tadashi S Kaneko; Jamshid Tehranzadeh; Harry B Skinner
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Measuring coronary calcium on CT images adjusted for attenuation differences.

Authors:  Jennifer Clark Nelson; Richard A Kronmal; J Jeffrey Carr; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Nathan D Wong; Catherine M Loria; Jonathan G Goldin; O Dale Williams; Robert Detrano
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Adaptation of the proximal femur to skeletal reloading after long-duration spaceflight.

Authors:  Thomas F Lang; Adrian D Leblanc; Harlan J Evans; Ying Lu
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 6.741

9.  Dimensions and volumetric BMD of the proximal femur and their relation to age among older U.S. men.

Authors:  Lynn M Marshall; Thomas F Lang; Lori C Lambert; Joseph M Zmuda; Kristine E Ensrud; Eric S Orwoll
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  Proximal femoral structure and the prediction of hip fracture in men: a large prospective study using QCT.

Authors:  Dennis M Black; Mary L Bouxsein; Lynn M Marshall; Steven R Cummings; Thomas F Lang; Jane A Cauley; Kristine E Ensrud; Carrie M Nielson; Eric S Orwoll
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 6.741

View more
  8 in total

1.  Phantomless calibration of CT scans for measurement of BMD and bone strength-Inter-operator reanalysis precision.

Authors:  David C Lee; Paul F Hoffmann; David L Kopperdahl; Tony M Keaveny
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 2.  Fracture risk assessment and clinical decision making for patients with metastatic bone disease.

Authors:  Timothy A Damron; Kenneth A Mann
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-03-23       Impact factor: 3.494

3.  Novel anthropomorphic hip phantom corrects systemic interscanner differences in proximal femoral vBMD.

Authors:  S Bonaretti; R D Carpenter; I Saeed; A J Burghardt; L Yu; M Bruesewitz; S Khosla; T Lang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-12-21       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Effect of different CT scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models.

Authors:  Florieke Eggermont; Loes C Derikx; Jeffrey Free; Ruud van Leeuwen; Yvette M van der Linden; Nico Verdonschot; Esther Tanck
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 3.494

5.  Calibration with or without phantom for fracture risk prediction in cancer patients with femoral bone metastases using CT-based finite element models.

Authors:  Florieke Eggermont; Nico Verdonschot; Yvette van der Linden; Esther Tanck
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The effect of variations in CT scan protocol on femoral finite element failure load assessment using phantomless calibration.

Authors:  Ali Ataei; Jelle Eikhout; Ruud G H van Leeuwen; Esther Tanck; Florieke Eggermont
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Can patient-specific finite element models better predict fractures in metastatic bone disease than experienced clinicians?: Towards computational modelling in daily clinical practice.

Authors:  F Eggermont; L C Derikx; N Verdonschot; I C M van der Geest; M A A de Jong; A Snyers; Y M van der Linden; E Tanck
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2018-07-07       Impact factor: 5.853

8.  Effect of CT imaging on the accuracy of the finite element modelling in bone.

Authors:  Emir Benca; Morteza Amini; Dieter H Pahr
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2020-09-01
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.