G Shi1, S Subramanian1, Q Cao1, S Demehri2, J H Siewerdsen1,2, W Zbijewski1. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD USA 21205. 2. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD USA 21287.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of a novel ultra-high resolution multi-detector CT scanner (Canon Aquilion Precision UHR CT), capable of visualizing ~150 μm details, in quantitative assessment of bone microarchitecture. Compared to conventional CT, the spatial resolution of UHR CT begins to approach the size of the trabeculae. This might enable measurements of microstructural correlates of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and other bone disease. METHODS: The UHR CT system features a 160-row x-ray detector with 250×250 μm pixels (measured at isocenter) and a custom-designed x-ray source with a 0.4×0.5 mm focal spot. Visualization of high contrast details down to ~150 μm has been achieved on this device, which is now commercially available for clinical use. To evaluate the performance of UHR CT in quantification of bone microstructure, we imaged a variety of human bone samples (including ulna, radius, and vertebrae) embedded in a ~16 cm diameter plastic cylinder and in an anthropomorphic thorax phantom (QRM-Thorax, QRM Gmbh). Helical UHR CT acquisitions (120 kVp tube voltage) were acquired at scan exposures of 375 mAs - 5 mAs. For comparison, the samples were also imaged using a Normal Resolution (NR) mode available on the scanner, involving 500 μm slice thickness, exposure of 50 mAs, and a focal spot of 0.6×1.3 mm. We obtained micro-CT (μCT) of the bone samples at ~28 μm voxel size as a gold-standard reference. Geometric measurements of bone microstructure were performed in 17 regions-of-interests (ROIs) distributed throughout the bones of the phantoms; image registration was used to place the ROIs at corresponding locations in the UHR CT and NR CT. Trabecular thickness Tb.Th, spacing Tb.Sp, and Bone Volume fraction BvTv were obtained. The UHR and NR imaging protocols were compared terms of correlations to μCT and error of trabecular measurements. The effect of dose on trabecular morphometry was also studied for the UHR CT. Furthermore, we evaluated the sensitivity of texture features of trabecular bone (recently proposed as an alternative to geometric indices of microstructure) to imaging protocol. Image texture evaluation was performed using ~150 regions of interest (ROIs) across all bone samples. Three-dimensional Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) and Gray Level Run Length Matrix (GLRM) features were extracted for each ROI. We analyzed correlation and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) of the mean ROI values of texture features obtained using the UHR and NR modes. RESULTS: UHR CT reconstructions of bone samples clearly demonstrated improved visualization of the trabeculae compared to NR CT. UHR CT achieved substantially better correlations for all three metrics of bone microstructure, in particular for BvTv (correlation coefficient of 0.91 for UHR CT compared to 0.84 for NR CT) and TbSp (correlation of 0.74 for UHR CT and 0.047 for NR CT). The error obtained with UHR CT was generally smaller than that of NR CT. For TbSp, the mean deviation from μCT (averaged across all bone samples) was only ~0.07 for UHR CT, compared to 0.25 for NR CT. Analysis of reproducibility of texture features of trabecular bone between UHR CT and NR CT revealed fair correlations (>0.7) for the majority of GLCM features, but relatively poor CCC (e.g. 0.02 for Energy and 0.04 for Entropy). The magnitude of texture metrics is particularly affected by the enhanced spatial resolution of UHR CT. CONCLUSION: The recently introduced UHR CT achieves improved correlation and reduced error in measurements of trabecular bone microstructure compared to conventional resolution CT. Future development of diagnostic strategies based on textural biomarkers derived from UHR CT will need to account for potential sensitivity of texture features to image resolution.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of a novel ultra-high resolution multi-detector CT scanner (Canon Aquilion Precision UHR CT), capable of visualizing ~150 μm details, in quantitative assessment of bone microarchitecture. Compared to conventional CT, the spatial resolution of UHR CT begins to approach the size of the trabeculae. This might enable measurements of microstructural correlates of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and other bone disease. METHODS: The UHR CT system features a 160-row x-ray detector with 250×250 μm pixels (measured at isocenter) and a custom-designed x-ray source with a 0.4×0.5 mm focal spot. Visualization of high contrast details down to ~150 μm has been achieved on this device, which is now commercially available for clinical use. To evaluate the performance of UHR CT in quantification of bone microstructure, we imaged a variety of human bone samples (including ulna, radius, and vertebrae) embedded in a ~16 cm diameter plastic cylinder and in an anthropomorphic thorax phantom (QRM-Thorax, QRM Gmbh). Helical UHR CT acquisitions (120 kVp tube voltage) were acquired at scan exposures of 375 mAs - 5 mAs. For comparison, the samples were also imaged using a Normal Resolution (NR) mode available on the scanner, involving 500 μm slice thickness, exposure of 50 mAs, and a focal spot of 0.6×1.3 mm. We obtained micro-CT (μCT) of the bone samples at ~28 μm voxel size as a gold-standard reference. Geometric measurements of bone microstructure were performed in 17 regions-of-interests (ROIs) distributed throughout the bones of the phantoms; image registration was used to place the ROIs at corresponding locations in the UHR CT and NR CT. Trabecular thickness Tb.Th, spacing Tb.Sp, and Bone Volume fraction BvTv were obtained. The UHR and NR imaging protocols were compared terms of correlations to μCT and error of trabecular measurements. The effect of dose on trabecular morphometry was also studied for the UHR CT. Furthermore, we evaluated the sensitivity of texture features of trabecular bone (recently proposed as an alternative to geometric indices of microstructure) to imaging protocol. Image texture evaluation was performed using ~150 regions of interest (ROIs) across all bone samples. Three-dimensional Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) and Gray Level Run Length Matrix (GLRM) features were extracted for each ROI. We analyzed correlation and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) of the mean ROI values of texture features obtained using the UHR and NR modes. RESULTS: UHR CT reconstructions of bone samples clearly demonstrated improved visualization of the trabeculae compared to NR CT. UHR CT achieved substantially better correlations for all three metrics of bone microstructure, in particular for BvTv (correlation coefficient of 0.91 for UHR CT compared to 0.84 for NR CT) and TbSp (correlation of 0.74 for UHR CT and 0.047 for NR CT). The error obtained with UHR CT was generally smaller than that of NR CT. For TbSp, the mean deviation from μCT (averaged across all bone samples) was only ~0.07 for UHR CT, compared to 0.25 for NR CT. Analysis of reproducibility of texture features of trabecular bone between UHR CT and NR CT revealed fair correlations (>0.7) for the majority of GLCM features, but relatively poor CCC (e.g. 0.02 for Energy and 0.04 for Entropy). The magnitude of texture metrics is particularly affected by the enhanced spatial resolution of UHR CT. CONCLUSION: The recently introduced UHR CT achieves improved correlation and reduced error in measurements of trabecular bone microstructure compared to conventional resolution CT. Future development of diagnostic strategies based on textural biomarkers derived from UHR CT will need to account for potential sensitivity of texture features to image resolution.
Entities:
Keywords:
bone imaging; bone microstructure; high resolution CT; quantitative CT
Authors: T M Link; S Majumdar; J C Lin; P Augat; R G Gould; D Newitt; X Ouyang; T F Lang; A Mathur; H K Genant Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1998 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Alexander Valentinitsch; Janina M Patsch; Andrew J Burghardt; Thomas M Link; Sharmila Majumdar; Lukas Fischer; Claudia Schueller-Weidekamm; Heinrich Resch; Franz Kainberger; Georg Langs Journal: Bone Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Mahesh B Nagarajan; Walter A Checefsky; Anas Z Abidin; Halley Tsai; Xixi Wang; Susan K Hobbs; Jan S Bauer; Thomas Baum; Axel Wismüller Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2015-03-17
Authors: Cheng Chen; Xiaoliu Zhang; Junfeng Guo; Dakai Jin; Elena M Letuchy; Trudy L Burns; Steven M Levy; Eric A Hoffman; Punam K Saha Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 4.071