» Articles » PMID: 2488150

Precise Measurement of Vertebral Bone Density Using Computed Tomography Without the Use of an External Reference Phantom

Overview
Journal J Digit Imaging
Publisher Springer
Date 1989 Feb 1
PMID 2488150
Citations 21
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Bone density measurement by quantitative computed tomography (QCT) commonly uses an external reference phantom to decrease scan-to-scan and scanner-to-scanner variability. However, the peripheral location of these phantoms and other phantom variables is also responsible for a measurable degradation in accuracy and precision. Due to non-uniform artifacts such as beam hardening, scatter, and volume averaging, the ideal reference phantom should be as close to the target tissue as possible. This investigation developed and tested a computer program that uses paraspinal muscle and fat tissue as internal reference standards in an effort to eliminate the need for an external phantom. Because of their proximity, these internal reference tissues can be assumed to reflect more accurately the local changes in the x-ray spectra and scatter distribution at the target tissue. A user interactive computerized histogram plotting technique enabled the derivation of reproducible CT numbers for muscle, fat, and trabecular bone. Preliminary results indicate that the use of internal reference tissues with the histogram technique may improve reproducibility of scan-to-scan measurements as well as inter-scanner precision. Reproducibility studies on 165 images with intentional region-of-interest (ROI) mispositioning of 1.5, 2.5, or 3.5 mm yielded a precision of better than 1% for normals and 1% to 2% for osteoporotic patients--a twofold improvement over the precision from similar tests using the standard technique with an external reference phantom. Such improvements in precision are essential for QCT to be clinically useful as a noninvasive modality for measurement of the very small annual changes in bone mineral density.

Citing Articles

Establishing the effect of computed tomography reconstruction kernels on the measure of bone mineral density in opportunistic osteoporosis screening.

Matheson B, Boyd S Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):5449.

PMID: 39953113 PMC: 11828980. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-88551-x.


Reproducibility of CT-based opportunistic vertebral volumetric bone mineral density measurements from an automated segmentation framework.

Bodden J, Prucker P, Sekuboyina A, El Husseini M, Grau K, Ruhling S Eur Radiol Exp. 2024; 8(1):86.

PMID: 39090457 PMC: 11294511. DOI: 10.1186/s41747-024-00483-9.


Phantomless calibration of CT scans for hip fracture risk prediction in silico: Comparison with phantom-based calibration.

Szyszko J, Aldieri A, La Mattina A, Viceconti M PLoS One. 2024; 19(6):e0305474.

PMID: 38875268 PMC: 11178222. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305474.


Feasibility analysis of low-dose CT with asynchronous quantitative computed tomography to assess vBMD.

Hu T, Yang X, Gao L, Liu Y, Zhang W, Wang Y BMC Med Imaging. 2023; 23(1):149.

PMID: 37803293 PMC: 10557302. DOI: 10.1186/s12880-023-01115-1.


Addressing Challenges of Opportunistic Computed Tomography Bone Mineral Density Analysis.

Bott K, Matheson B, Smith A, Tse J, Boyd S, Manske S Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(15).

PMID: 37568935 PMC: 10416827. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13152572.


References
1.
Merritt R, Chenery S . Quantitative CT measurements: the effect of scatter acceptance and filter characteristics on the EMI 7070. Phys Med Biol. 1986; 31(1):55-63. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/31/1/005. View

2.
Rosenthal D, Ganott M, Wyshak G, Slovik D, Doppelt S, Neer R . Quantitative computed tomography for spinal density measurement. Factors affecting precision. Invest Radiol. 1985; 20(3):306-10. DOI: 10.1097/00004424-198505000-00014. View

3.
Genant H, Steiger P, Block J, Glueer C, Ettinger B, Harris S . Quantitative computed tomography: update 1987. Calcif Tissue Int. 1987; 41(4):179-86. DOI: 10.1007/BF02555236. View

4.
Cann C, Genant H, KOLB F, Ettinger B . Quantitative computed tomography for prediction of vertebral fracture risk. Bone. 1985; 6(1):1-7. DOI: 10.1016/8756-3282(85)90399-0. View

5.
Goodsitt M, Rosenthal D . Quantitative computed tomography scanning for measurement of bone and bone marrow fat content. A comparison of single- and dual-energy techniques using a solid synthetic phantom. Invest Radiol. 1987; 22(10):799-810. DOI: 10.1097/00004424-198710000-00006. View