» Articles » PMID: 8422515

Cross-calibration of Liquid and Solid QCT Calibration Standards: Corrections to the UCSF Normative Data

Overview
Journal Osteoporos Int
Date 1993 Jan 1
PMID 8422515
Citations 25
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) has been shown to be a precise and sensitive method for evaluating spinal bone mineral density (BMD) and skeletal response to aging and therapy. Precise and accurate determination of BMD using QCT requires a calibration standard to compensate for and reduce the effects of beam-hardening artifacts and scanner drift. The first standards were based on dipotassium hydrogen phosphate (K2HPO4) solutions. Recently, several manufacturers have developed stable solid calibration standards based on calcium hydroxyapatite (CHA) in water-equivalent plastic. Due to differences in attenuating properties of the liquid and solid standards, the calibrated BMD values obtained with each system do not agree. In order to compare and interpret the results obtained on both systems, cross-calibration measurements were performed in phantoms and patients using the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) liquid standard and the Image Analysis (IA) solid standard on the UCSF GE 9800 CT scanner. From the phantom measurements, a highly linear relationship was found between the liquid- and solid-calibrated BMD values. No influence on the cross-calibration due to simulated variations in body size or vertebral fat content was seen, though a significant difference in the cross-calibration was observed between scans acquired at 80 and 140 kVp. From the patient measurements, a linear relationship between the liquid (UCSF) and solid (IA) calibrated values was derived for GE 9800 CT scanners at 80 kVp (IA = [1.15 x UCSF] - 7.32).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Citing Articles

3D-modeling from hip DXA shows improved bone structure with romosozumab followed by denosumab or alendronate.

Lewiecki E, Betah D, Humbert L, Libanati C, Oates M, Shi Y J Bone Miner Res. 2024; 39(4):473-483.

PMID: 38477808 PMC: 11262148. DOI: 10.1093/jbmr/zjae028.


Validation of bone mineral density measurement using quantitative CBCT image based on deep learning.

Park C, Kang S, Kim J, Huh K, Lee S, Heo M Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):11921.

PMID: 37488135 PMC: 10366160. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-38943-8.


2D-3D reconstruction of the proximal femur from DXA scans: Evaluation of the 3D-Shaper software.

Dudle A, Gugler Y, Pretterklieber M, Ferrari S, Lippuner K, Zysset P Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023; 11:1111020.

PMID: 36937766 PMC: 10014626. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1111020.


Internal calibration for opportunistic computed tomography muscle density analysis.

Smith A, Tse J, Waungana T, Bott K, Kuczynski M, Michalski A PLoS One. 2022; 17(10):e0273203.

PMID: 36251648 PMC: 9576101. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273203.


Experimental validation of a voxel-based finite element model simulating femoroplasty of lytic lesions in the proximal femur.

Sas A, Sermon A, van Lenthe G Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):7602.

PMID: 35534595 PMC: 9085891. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-11667-x.


References
1.
Heuck A, Block J, Glueer C, Steiger P, Genant H . Mild versus definite osteoporosis: comparison of bone densitometry techniques using different statistical models. J Bone Miner Res. 1989; 4(6):891-900. DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.5650040614. View

2.
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

3.
Schneider P, Borner W, Mazess R, BARDEN H . The relationship of peripheral to axial bone density. Bone Miner. 1988; 4(3):279-87. View

4.
Block J, Smith R, Glueer C, Steiger P, Ettinger B, Genant H . Models of spinal trabecular bone loss as determined by quantitative computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res. 1989; 4(2):249-57. DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.5650040218. View

5.
Steiger P, Block J, Steiger S, Heuck A, FRIEDLANDER A, Ettinger B . Spinal bone mineral density measured with quantitative CT: effect of region of interest, vertebral level, and technique. Radiology. 1990; 175(2):537-43. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.175.2.2326479. View