Literature DB >> 2584480

Impact of marrow fat on accuracy of quantitative CT.

C C Glüer1, H K Genant.   

Abstract

An assessment of the role of marrow fat as a source of error in single energy quantitative CT (SEQCT) measurements of the spine is presented. Fat-induced shifts and spreads in SEQCT findings are discriminated and quantified. Studies using chemical analysis have reported an average vertebral bone mineral (MIN) loss of approximately 1.3 mg/ml (0.9%) per year from a peak MIN of 150 mg/ml at age 30 years with a standard error of the estimate (SEE) of approximately 23 mg/ml [coefficient of variation (CV) = 20%]; intraosseous vertebral fat content increases by approximately 2.4 mg/ml (1.4%) per year from a fat density of 175 mg/ml at age 30 years with an SEE of approximately 87.5 mg/ml (CV = 36%). If one does not adjust for the average age-related fat change, SEQCT underestimates MIN and overestimates MIN loss by 10-30% (at a scanner setting of approximately 80 kVp). Application of correction procedures reduces the average underestimation to 1-3%. The impact of residual vertebral fat variability on the accuracy of MIN measurements accounts for only 12-24% of the total accuracy error of typically 10-15 mg/ml. The impact of fat changes between zero and twice the normal age-related rate on MIN loss measurements on individual patients and patient groups (treatment versus control) accounts for only 1-2% of the total precision error of typically 1.5-3 mg/ml. From 94 to 99% of the spread of SEQCT versus age data is caused by sources of variability other than fat. All fat-related errors are higher than the above estimates by a factor of approximately 1.5-2.5 when scanning at higher voltages of up to 130 kVp. Given the limited impact of fat variability, we conclude that for most clinical applications, MIN and bone loss measurements should use SEQCT. Adjustment for the average under/overestimation (by either explicitly correcting SEQCT findings or by comparing them with normative data obtained on a similar scanner), measuring at low voltages of approximately 80 kVp, and strict compliance to quality assurance procedures are highly recommended to achieve optimum accuracy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2584480     DOI: 10.1097/00004728-198911000-00015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr        ISSN: 0363-8715            Impact factor:   1.826


  16 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

Review 2.  Using diagnostic radiology in human evolutionary studies.

Authors:  F Spoor; N Jeffery; F Zonneveld
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.610

Review 3.  Anabolic and antiresorptive therapy for osteoporosis: combination and sequential approaches.

Authors:  Felicia Cosman
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 5.096

4.  [Feasibility of flat-panel volumetric computed tomography (fpVCT) in experimental small animal imaging of osteoporosis - initial experience].

Authors:  R Valencia; E K Stuermer; C Dullin; K P Herrmann; I Kluever; A Zaroban; S Sehmisch; M Funke; F Knollmann
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 0.635

5.  Bone mineral and other bone components in vertebrae evaluated by QCT and MRI.

Authors:  M Ito; K Hayashi; M Uetani; Y Kawahara; M Ohki; M Yamada; H Kitamori; M Noguchi; M Ito
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 6.  Bone densitometry: current assessment.

Authors:  H K Genant; K G Faulkner; C C Glüer; K Engelke
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 7.  Combination therapy for osteoporosis: a reappraisal.

Authors:  Felicia Cosman
Journal:  Bonekey Rep       Date:  2014-04-02

8.  Evaluation of cross-sectional and longitudinal changes in volumetric bone mineral density in postmenopausal women using single- versus dual-energy quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  Jad G Sfeir; Matthew T Drake; Elizabeth J Atkinson; Sara J Achenbach; Jon J Camp; Amanda J Tweed; Louise K McCready; Lifeng Yu; Mark C Adkins; Shreyasee Amin; Sundeep Khosla
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 4.398

9.  Anteroposterior versus lateral bone mineral density of spine assessed by dual X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  L Del Rio; F Pons; M Huguet; F J Setoain; J Setoain
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1995-05

10.  Use of dual-energy computed tomography to measure skeletal-wide marrow composition and cancellous bone mineral density.

Authors:  Luke Arentsen; Karen E Hansen; Masashi Yagi; Yutaka Takahashi; Ryan Shanley; Angela McArthur; Patrick Bolan; Taiki Magome; Douglas Yee; Jerry Froelich; Susanta K Hui
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2016-12-09       Impact factor: 2.626

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.