Cargando…

Accuracy and precision of volumetric bone mineral density assessment using dual-source dual-energy versus quantitative CT: a phantom study

BACKGROUND: Dual-source dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) offers the potential for opportunistic osteoporosis screening by enabling phantomless bone mineral density (BMD) quantification. This study sought to assess the accuracy and precision of volumetric BMD measurement using dual-source DECT...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Koch, Vitali, Hokamp, Nils Große, Albrecht, Moritz H., Gruenewald, Leon D., Yel, Ibrahim, Borggrefe, Jan, Wesarg, Stefan, Eichler, Katrin, Burck, Iris, Gruber-Rouh, Tatjana, Lenga, Lukas, Vogl, Thomas J., Martin, Simon S., Wichmann, Julian L., Hammerstingl, Renate M., Alizadeh, Leona S., Mader, Christoph, Huizinga, Nicole A., D’Angelo, Tommaso, Ascenti, Giorgio, Mazziotti, Silvio, Booz, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8490583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34608576
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41747-021-00241-1
_version_ 1784578547764953088
author Koch, Vitali
Hokamp, Nils Große
Albrecht, Moritz H.
Gruenewald, Leon D.
Yel, Ibrahim
Borggrefe, Jan
Wesarg, Stefan
Eichler, Katrin
Burck, Iris
Gruber-Rouh, Tatjana
Lenga, Lukas
Vogl, Thomas J.
Martin, Simon S.
Wichmann, Julian L.
Hammerstingl, Renate M.
Alizadeh, Leona S.
Mader, Christoph
Huizinga, Nicole A.
D’Angelo, Tommaso
Ascenti, Giorgio
Mazziotti, Silvio
Booz, Christian
author_facet Koch, Vitali
Hokamp, Nils Große
Albrecht, Moritz H.
Gruenewald, Leon D.
Yel, Ibrahim
Borggrefe, Jan
Wesarg, Stefan
Eichler, Katrin
Burck, Iris
Gruber-Rouh, Tatjana
Lenga, Lukas
Vogl, Thomas J.
Martin, Simon S.
Wichmann, Julian L.
Hammerstingl, Renate M.
Alizadeh, Leona S.
Mader, Christoph
Huizinga, Nicole A.
D’Angelo, Tommaso
Ascenti, Giorgio
Mazziotti, Silvio
Booz, Christian
author_sort Koch, Vitali
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Dual-source dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) offers the potential for opportunistic osteoporosis screening by enabling phantomless bone mineral density (BMD) quantification. This study sought to assess the accuracy and precision of volumetric BMD measurement using dual-source DECT in comparison to quantitative CT (QCT). METHODS: A validated spine phantom consisting of three lumbar vertebra equivalents with 50 (L1), 100 (L2), and 200 mg/cm(3) (L3) calcium hydroxyapatite (HA) concentrations was scanned employing third-generation dual-source DECT and QCT. While BMD assessment based on QCT required an additional standardised bone density calibration phantom, the DECT technique operated by using a dedicated postprocessing software based on material decomposition without requiring calibration phantoms. Accuracy and precision of both modalities were compared by calculating measurement errors. In addition, correlation and agreement analyses were performed using Pearson correlation, linear regression, and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: DECT-derived BMD values differed significantly from those obtained by QCT (p < 0.001) and were found to be closer to true HA concentrations. Relative measurement errors were significantly smaller for DECT in comparison to QCT (L1, 0.94% versus 9.68%; L2, 0.28% versus 5.74%; L3, 0.24% versus 3.67%, respectively). DECT demonstrated better BMD measurement repeatability compared to QCT (coefficient of variance < 4.29% for DECT, < 6.74% for QCT). Both methods correlated well to each other (r = 0.9993; 95% confidence interval 0.9984–0.9997; p < 0.001) and revealed substantial agreement in Bland-Altman plots. CONCLUSIONS: Phantomless dual-source DECT-based BMD assessment of lumbar vertebra equivalents using material decomposition showed higher diagnostic accuracy compared to QCT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8490583
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84905832021-10-15 Accuracy and precision of volumetric bone mineral density assessment using dual-source dual-energy versus quantitative CT: a phantom study Koch, Vitali Hokamp, Nils Große Albrecht, Moritz H. Gruenewald, Leon D. Yel, Ibrahim Borggrefe, Jan Wesarg, Stefan Eichler, Katrin Burck, Iris Gruber-Rouh, Tatjana Lenga, Lukas Vogl, Thomas J. Martin, Simon S. Wichmann, Julian L. Hammerstingl, Renate M. Alizadeh, Leona S. Mader, Christoph Huizinga, Nicole A. D’Angelo, Tommaso Ascenti, Giorgio Mazziotti, Silvio Booz, Christian Eur Radiol Exp Original Article BACKGROUND: Dual-source dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) offers the potential for opportunistic osteoporosis screening by enabling phantomless bone mineral density (BMD) quantification. This study sought to assess the accuracy and precision of volumetric BMD measurement using dual-source DECT in comparison to quantitative CT (QCT). METHODS: A validated spine phantom consisting of three lumbar vertebra equivalents with 50 (L1), 100 (L2), and 200 mg/cm(3) (L3) calcium hydroxyapatite (HA) concentrations was scanned employing third-generation dual-source DECT and QCT. While BMD assessment based on QCT required an additional standardised bone density calibration phantom, the DECT technique operated by using a dedicated postprocessing software based on material decomposition without requiring calibration phantoms. Accuracy and precision of both modalities were compared by calculating measurement errors. In addition, correlation and agreement analyses were performed using Pearson correlation, linear regression, and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: DECT-derived BMD values differed significantly from those obtained by QCT (p < 0.001) and were found to be closer to true HA concentrations. Relative measurement errors were significantly smaller for DECT in comparison to QCT (L1, 0.94% versus 9.68%; L2, 0.28% versus 5.74%; L3, 0.24% versus 3.67%, respectively). DECT demonstrated better BMD measurement repeatability compared to QCT (coefficient of variance < 4.29% for DECT, < 6.74% for QCT). Both methods correlated well to each other (r = 0.9993; 95% confidence interval 0.9984–0.9997; p < 0.001) and revealed substantial agreement in Bland-Altman plots. CONCLUSIONS: Phantomless dual-source DECT-based BMD assessment of lumbar vertebra equivalents using material decomposition showed higher diagnostic accuracy compared to QCT. Springer International Publishing 2021-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8490583/ /pubmed/34608576 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41747-021-00241-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Koch, Vitali
Hokamp, Nils Große
Albrecht, Moritz H.
Gruenewald, Leon D.
Yel, Ibrahim
Borggrefe, Jan
Wesarg, Stefan
Eichler, Katrin
Burck, Iris
Gruber-Rouh, Tatjana
Lenga, Lukas
Vogl, Thomas J.
Martin, Simon S.
Wichmann, Julian L.
Hammerstingl, Renate M.
Alizadeh, Leona S.
Mader, Christoph
Huizinga, Nicole A.
D’Angelo, Tommaso
Ascenti, Giorgio
Mazziotti, Silvio
Booz, Christian
Accuracy and precision of volumetric bone mineral density assessment using dual-source dual-energy versus quantitative CT: a phantom study
title Accuracy and precision of volumetric bone mineral density assessment using dual-source dual-energy versus quantitative CT: a phantom study
title_full Accuracy and precision of volumetric bone mineral density assessment using dual-source dual-energy versus quantitative CT: a phantom study
title_fullStr Accuracy and precision of volumetric bone mineral density assessment using dual-source dual-energy versus quantitative CT: a phantom study
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy and precision of volumetric bone mineral density assessment using dual-source dual-energy versus quantitative CT: a phantom study
title_short Accuracy and precision of volumetric bone mineral density assessment using dual-source dual-energy versus quantitative CT: a phantom study
title_sort accuracy and precision of volumetric bone mineral density assessment using dual-source dual-energy versus quantitative ct: a phantom study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8490583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34608576
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41747-021-00241-1
work_keys_str_mv AT kochvitali accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT hokampnilsgroße accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT albrechtmoritzh accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT gruenewaldleond accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT yelibrahim accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT borggrefejan accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT wesargstefan accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT eichlerkatrin accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT burckiris accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT gruberrouhtatjana accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT lengalukas accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT voglthomasj accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT martinsimons accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT wichmannjulianl accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT hammerstinglrenatem accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT alizadehleonas accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT maderchristoph accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT huizinganicolea accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT dangelotommaso accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT ascentigiorgio accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT mazziottisilvio accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy
AT boozchristian accuracyandprecisionofvolumetricbonemineraldensityassessmentusingdualsourcedualenergyversusquantitativectaphantomstudy