Literature DB >> 26781430

Asynchronously Calibrated Quantitative Bone Densitometry.

J K Brown1, W Timm2, G Bodeen1, A Chason1, M Perry3, F Vernacchia4, R DeJournett5.   

Abstract

Conventional quantitative computed tomography (QCT) uses a phantom scanned simultaneously with the anatomical region of interest. A newly developed method called asynchronous QCT does not require a phantom to be present during the patient scan. This allows the inclusion of computer tomography scans performed without any calibration standard in a different clinical context than bone densitometry, for example, in a screening context. In the present study, the asynchronous and the conventional quantitative computed tomographies were compared. Specifically, short-term precision, a phantom-induced bias, methodical equivalence of the asynchronous and the conventional methods, and interobserver variability were investigated. Ten phantom scans served for investigation of short-term precision. A prospective dataset of 43 study participants (44-80 years, mean 63.8 ± 8.6 years) was acquired over 3 clinical sites. Trabecular regions of the spine as well as cortical and trabecular regions of the hip (femoral neck, trochanter, intertrochanter, and shaft) were analyzed with respect to the presence or absence of a phantom and with regard to the synchronous and asynchronous calibration methods. Regarding precision, all variations of the mean areal and volumetric densities were lower for the asynchronous method than for the conventional method. The presence of the phantom resulted in a bias of 2.3 mg/cm3, and the choice of the asynchronously or synchronously calibrated analysis resulted in a bias of 3.7 mg/cm3 at the spine. Both were statistically, but not clinically, significant. The total hip was statistically, but not clinically, significantly different by 0.008 g/cm2. The bone density values between the 2 techniques correlated highly with one another at all regions investigated. Interobserver variability between 2 trained observers showed a difference of 0.2 mg/cm3 (spine) and differences less or equal to 0.009 g/cm2 (hip), which again was regarded as clinically nonsignificant. In summary, the asynchronously calibrated QCT provides results comparable to the established synchronously calibrated QCT.
Copyright © 2015 International Society for Clinical Densitometry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Asynchronous QCT; osteoporosis; prospective screening

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26781430     DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2015.11.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Densitom        ISSN: 1094-6950            Impact factor:   2.617


  18 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

2.  Fully automated segmentation and quantification of visceral and subcutaneous fat at abdominal CT: application to a longitudinal adult screening cohort.

Authors:  Scott J Lee; Jiamin Liu; Jianhua Yao; Andrew Kanarek; Ronald M Summers; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-03-28       Impact factor: 3.039

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.  Osteoporosis and Hip Fracture Risk From Routine Computed Tomography Scans: The Fracture, Osteoporosis, and CT Utilization Study (FOCUS).

Authors:  Annette L Adams; Heidi Fischer; David L Kopperdahl; David C Lee; Dennis M Black; Mary L Bouxsein; Shireen Fatemi; Sundeep Khosla; Eric S Orwoll; Ethel S Siris; Tony M Keaveny
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  The association between lumbar paraspinal muscle functional cross-sectional area on MRI and regional volumetric bone mineral density measured by quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  E Chiapparelli; I Okano; D Adl Amini; J Zhu; S N Salzmann; E T Tan; M Moser; O C Sax; C Echeverri; L Oezel; J Shue; A A Sama; F P Cammisa; F P Girardi; A P Hughes
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2022-08-06       Impact factor: 5.071

6.  The effect of obesity, diabetes, and epidural steroid injection on regional volumetric bone mineral density measured by quantitative computed tomography in the lumbosacral spine.

Authors:  Ichiro Okano; Stephan N Salzmann; Conor Jones; Marie-Jacqueline Reisener; Courtney Ortiz Miller; Toshiyuki Shirahata; Jennifer Shue; John A Carrino; Andrew A Sama; Frank P Cammisa; Federico P Girardi; Alexander P Hughes
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-10-10       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  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

8.  Computed tomography-based opportunistic osteoporosis assessment: a comparison of two software applications for lumbar vertebral volumetric bone mineral density measurements.

Authors:  Mischa Woisetschläger; Martin Hägg; Anna Spångeus
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-04

9.  Fully automated radiomic screening pipeline for osteoporosis and abnormal bone density with a deep learning-based segmentation using a short lumbar mDixon sequence.

Authors:  Yinxia Zhao; Tianyun Zhao; Shenglan Chen; Xintao Zhang; Mario Serrano Sosa; Jin Liu; Xianfu Mo; Xiaojun Chen; Mingqian Huang; Shaolin Li; Xiaodong Zhang; Chuan Huang
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-02

Review 10.  Opportunistic diagnosis of osteoporosis, fragile bone strength and vertebral fractures from routine CT scans; a review of approved technology systems and pathways to implementation.

Authors:  Veena Aggarwal; Christina Maslen; Richard L Abel; Pinaki Bhattacharya; Paul A Bromiley; Emma M Clark; Juliet E Compston; Nicola Crabtree; Jennifer S Gregory; Eleni P Kariki; Nicholas C Harvey; Kate A Ward; Kenneth E S Poole
Journal:  Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis       Date:  2021-07-10       Impact factor: 5.346

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.