OBJECTIVE: The objective is to evaluate the effect of intravenous contrast media on bone mineral density (BMD) assessment by comparing unenhanced and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) examinations performed for other indications. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-two patients (99 without and 53 with malignant neoplasm) who underwent both unenhanced and two contrast-enhanced (arterial and portal venous phase) abdominal CT examinations in a single session between June 2011 and July 2013 were included. BMD was evaluated on the three examinations as CT-attenuation values in Hounsfield Units (HU) in the first lumbar vertebra (L1). RESULTS: CT-attenuation values were significantly higher in both contrast-enhanced phases, compared to the unenhanced phase (p < 0.01). In patients without malignancies, mean ± standard deviation (SD) HU-values increased from 128.8 ± 48.6 HU for the unenhanced phase to 142.3 ± 47.2 HU for the arterial phase and 147.0 ± 47.4 HU for the portal phase (p < 0.01). In patients with malignancies, HU-values increased from 112.1 ± 38.1 HU to 126.2 ± 38.4 HU and 130.1 ± 37.3 HU (p < 0.02), respectively. With different thresholds to define osteoporosis, measurements in the arterial and portal phase resulted in 7-25% false negatives. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that intravenous contrast injection substantially affects BMD-assessment on CT and taking this into account may improve routine assessment of low BMD in nonquantitative CT. KEY POINTS: • Routine CT may gain a role in bone attenuation measurements for osteoporosis • Contrast media injection has substantial influence on CT-derived bone density • Contrast-enhanced CT leads to underestimation of osteoporosis compared to unenhanced CT • Adjusting for contrast injection phase may improve CT screening protocols for osteoporosis.
OBJECTIVE: The objective is to evaluate the effect of intravenous contrast media on bone mineral density (BMD) assessment by comparing unenhanced and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) examinations performed for other indications. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-two patients (99 without and 53 with malignant neoplasm) who underwent both unenhanced and two contrast-enhanced (arterial and portal venous phase) abdominal CT examinations in a single session between June 2011 and July 2013 were included. BMD was evaluated on the three examinations as CT-attenuation values in Hounsfield Units (HU) in the first lumbar vertebra (L1). RESULTS: CT-attenuation values were significantly higher in both contrast-enhanced phases, compared to the unenhanced phase (p < 0.01). In patients without malignancies, mean ± standard deviation (SD) HU-values increased from 128.8 ± 48.6 HU for the unenhanced phase to 142.3 ± 47.2 HU for the arterial phase and 147.0 ± 47.4 HU for the portal phase (p < 0.01). In patients with malignancies, HU-values increased from 112.1 ± 38.1 HU to 126.2 ± 38.4 HU and 130.1 ± 37.3 HU (p < 0.02), respectively. With different thresholds to define osteoporosis, measurements in the arterial and portal phase resulted in 7-25% false negatives. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that intravenous contrast injection substantially affects BMD-assessment on CT and taking this into account may improve routine assessment of low BMD in nonquantitative CT. KEY POINTS: • Routine CT may gain a role in bone attenuation measurements for osteoporosis • Contrast media injection has substantial influence on CT-derived bone density • Contrast-enhanced CT leads to underestimation of osteoporosis compared to unenhanced CT • Adjusting for contrast injection phase may improve CT screening protocols for osteoporosis.
Authors: Klaus Engelke; Judith E Adams; Gabriele Armbrecht; Peter Augat; Cesar E Bogado; Mary L Bouxsein; Dieter Felsenberg; Masako Ito; Sven Prevrhal; Didier B Hans; E Michael Lewiecki Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2008 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.617
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
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; B Dustin Pooler; Travis Lauder; Alejandro Muñoz del Rio; Richard J Bruce; Neil Binkley Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: P Steiger; J E Block; S Steiger; A F Heuck; A Friedlander; B Ettinger; S T Harris; C C Glüer; H K Genant Journal: Radiology Date: 1990-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Scott J Lee; Peter M Graffy; Ryan D Zea; Timothy J Ziemlewicz; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Benedikt J Schwaiger; David L Kopperdahl; Lorenzo Nardo; Luca Facchetti; Alexandra S Gersing; Jan Neumann; Kwang J Lee; Tony M Keaveny; Thomas M Link Journal: Bone Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Ashley A Weaver; Kristen M Beavers; R Caresse Hightower; Sarah K Lynch; Anna N Miller; Joel D Stitzel Journal: Traffic Inj Prev Date: 2015 Impact factor: 1.491
Authors: Samuel Jang; Peter M Graffy; Timothy J Ziemlewicz; Scott J Lee; Ronald M Summers; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Max J Scheyerer; Bernhard Ullrich; Georg Osterhoff; Ulrich A Spiegl; Klaus J Schnake Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: Camilla Engblom; Christina Pfirschke; Rapolas Zilionis; Janaina Da Silva Martins; Stijn A Bos; Gabriel Courties; Steffen Rickelt; Nicolas Severe; Ninib Baryawno; Julien Faget; Virginia Savova; David Zemmour; Jaclyn Kline; Marie Siwicki; Christopher Garris; Ferdinando Pucci; Hsin-Wei Liao; Yi-Jang Lin; Andita Newton; Omar K Yaghi; Yoshiko Iwamoto; Benoit Tricot; Gregory R Wojtkiewicz; Matthias Nahrendorf; Virna Cortez-Retamozo; Etienne Meylan; Richard O Hynes; Marie Demay; Allon Klein; Miriam A Bredella; David T Scadden; Ralph Weissleder; Mikael J Pittet Journal: Science Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 47.728