» Articles » PMID: 34047849

Opportunistic Application of Phantom-less Calibration Methods for Fracture Risk Prediction Using QCT/FEA

Overview
Journal Eur Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2021 May 28
PMID 34047849
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: Quantitative computed tomography (QCT)-based finite element analysis (FEA) implements a calibration phantom to estimate bone mineral density (BMD) and assign material properties to the models. The objectives of this study were to (1) propose robust phantom-less calibration methods, using subject-specific tissues, to obtain vertebral fracture properties estimations using QCT/FEA; and (2) correlate QCT/FEA predictions to DXA values of areal BMD.

Methods: Eighty of a cohort of 111 clinical QCT scans were used to obtain subject-specific parameters using a phantom calibration approach and for the development of the phantom-less calibration equations. Equations were developed based on the HU measured from various soft tissues and regions, and using multiple linear regression analyses. Thirty-one additional QCT scans were used for cross-validation of QCT/FEA estimated fracture loads from the L vertebrae based on the phantom and phantom-less equations. Finally, QCT/FEA-predicted fracture loads were correlated with aBMD obtained from DXA.

Results: Overall, 217 QCT/FEA models from 31 subjects (20 females, 11 men) with mean ages of 69.6 (13.1) and 67.3 (14) were used to cross-validate the phantom-less equations and assess bone strength. The proposed phantom-less equations showed high correlations with phantom-based estimates of BMD (99%). Cross-validation of QCT/FEA-predicted fracture loads from phantom-less equations and phantom-specific outcomes resulted in high correlations for all proposed methods (0.94-0.99). QCT/FEA correlation outcomes from the phantom-less equations and DXA-aBMD were moderately high (0.64-0.68).

Conclusions: The proposed QCT/FEA subject-specific phantom-less calibration methods demonstrated the potential to be applied to both prospective and retrospective applications in the clinical setting.

Key Points: • QCT/FEA overcomes the disadvantages of DXA and improves fracture properties predictions of vertebrae. • QCT/FEA fracture estimates using the phantom-less approach highly correlated to values obtained using a calibration phantom. • QCT/FEA prediction using a phantom-less approach is an accurate alternative over phantom-based methods.

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.


Multi-site phantomless bone mineral density from clinical quantitative computed tomography in males.

Haverfield Z, Agnew A, Loftis K, Zhang J, Hayden L, Hunter R JBMR Plus. 2024; 8(10):ziae106.

PMID: 39224571 PMC: 11366047. DOI: 10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae106.


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.


Developing and Validating a Model of Humeral Stem Primary Stability, Intended for In Silico Clinical Trials.

Maquer G, Mueri C, Henderson A, Bischoff J, Favre P Ann Biomed Eng. 2024; 52(5):1280-1296.

PMID: 38361138 DOI: 10.1007/s10439-024-03452-w.


Performance of iCare quantitative computed tomography in bone mineral density assessment of the hip and vertebral bodies in European spine phantom.

Liu F, Zhu H, Ma J, Miao L, Chen S, Yin Z J Orthop Surg Res. 2023; 18(1):777.

PMID: 37845720 PMC: 10578019. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04174-w.


References
1.
Johannesdottir F, Allaire B, Bouxsein M . Fracture Prediction by Computed Tomography and Finite Element Analysis: Current and Future Perspectives. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2018; 16(4):411-422. DOI: 10.1007/s11914-018-0450-z. View

2.
Kaesmacher J, Liebl H, Baum T, Kirschke J . Bone Mineral Density Estimations From Routine Multidetector Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study of Contrast and Calibration Effects. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2016; 41(2):217-223. PMC: 5359785. DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000518. View

3.
Schreiber J, Anderson P, Hsu W . Use of computed tomography for assessing bone mineral density. Neurosurg Focus. 2014; 37(1):E4. DOI: 10.3171/2014.5.FOCUS1483. View

4.
Valentinitsch A, Trebeschi S, Kaesmacher J, Lorenz C, Loffler M, Zimmer C . Opportunistic osteoporosis screening in multi-detector CT images via local classification of textures. Osteoporos Int. 2019; 30(6):1275-1285. PMC: 6546649. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-019-04910-1. View

5.
Engelke K, Lang T, Khosla S, Qin L, Zysset P, Leslie W . Clinical Use of Quantitative Computed Tomography-Based Advanced Techniques in the Management of Osteoporosis in Adults: the 2015 ISCD Official Positions-Part III. J Clin Densitom. 2015; 18(3):393-407. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2015.06.010. View