Literature DB >> 29680671

Vertebral Bone Mineral Density Measured by Quantitative Computed Tomography With and Without a Calibration Phantom: A Comparison Between 2 Different Software Solutions.

Josephine Therkildsen1, Jesper Thygesen2, Simon Winther3, My Svensson4, Ellen-Margrethe Hauge5, Morten Böttcher1, Per Ivarsen6, Hanne Skou Jørgensen7.   

Abstract

Quantitative computed tomography (CT) can be used to quantify bone mineral density (BMD) in the spine from clinical CT scans. We aimed to determine agreement and precision of BMD measurements by 2 different methods: phantom-less internal tissue calibration and asynchronous phantom-based calibration in a cohort of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Patients with CKD were recruited for CT angiography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. BMD was analyzed by 2 different software solutions using different calibration techniques; phantom-based by QCT Pro (Mindways Inc.) and phantom-less by Extended Brilliance Workspace (Philips Healthcare). Intraoperator reanalysis was performed on 53 patients (36%) for both methods. An interoperator reanalysis on 30 patients (20%) using the phantom-based method and 29 patients (19%) using the phantom-less method was made. XY- and Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate method agreement. Phantom-based measured BMD was systematically higher than phantom-less measured BMD. Despite a small absolute difference of 3.3 mg/cm3 (CI: -0.2-6.9 mg/cm3) and a relative difference of 5.1% (CI: 2.2%-8.1%), interindividual differences were large, as seen by a wide prediction interval (PI: -47-40 mg/cm3). The Bland-Altman plot showed no systematic bias, apart from 5 outliers. Intraoperator variability was high for the phantom-less method (5.8%) compared to the phantom-based (0.8%) and the interoperator variability was also high for the phantom-less method (5.8%) compared to the phantom-based (1.8%). Despite high correlation between methods, the between-method difference on an individual level showed great variability. Our results suggest agreement between these 2 methods is insufficient to allow them to be used interchangeably in patients with CKD.
Copyright © 2018 The International Society for Clinical Densitometry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone density; chronic renal insufficiency; computed tomography; osteoporosis

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29680671     DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2017.12.003

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


  1 in total

Review 1.  Opportunistic Screening for Osteoporosis Using Computed Tomography: State of the Art and Argument for Paradigm Shift.

Authors:  Leon Lenchik; Ashley A Weaver; Robert J Ward; John M Boone; Robert D Boutin
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2018-10-13       Impact factor: 4.592

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.