Advertisement

DXA-equivalent quantification of bone mineral density using dual-layer spectral CT scout scans

  • Alexis Laugerette
  • Benedikt J. Schwaiger
  • Kevin Brown
  • Lena C. Frerking
  • Felix K. Kopp
  • Kai Mei
  • Thorsten Sellerer
  • Jan Kirschke
  • Thomas Baum
  • Alexandra S. Gersing
  • Daniela Pfeiffer
  • Alexander A. Fingerle
  • Ernst J. Rummeny
  • Roland Proksa
  • Peter B. NoëlEmail author
  • Franz Pfeiffer
Computed Tomography

Abstract

Objectives

To develop and evaluate a method for areal bone mineral density (aBMD) measurement based on dual-layer spectral CT scout scans.

Methods

A post-processing algorithm using a pair of 2D virtual mono-energetic scout images (VMSIs) was established in order to semi-automatically compute the aBMD at the spine similarly to DXA, using manual soft tissue segmentation, semi-automatic segmentation for the vertebrae, and automatic segmentation for the background. The method was assessed based on repetitive measurements of the standardized European Spine Phantom (ESP) using the standard scout scan tube current (30 mA) and other tube currents (10 to 200 mA), as well as using fat-equivalent extension rings simulating different patient habitus, and was compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Moreover, the feasibility of the method was assessed in vivo in female patients.

Results

Derived from standard scout scans, aBMD values measured with the proposed method significantly correlated with DXA measurements (r = 0.9925, p < 0.001), and mean accuracy (DXA, 4.12%; scout, 1.60%) and precision (DXA, 2.64%; scout, 2.03%) were comparable between the two methods. Moreover, aBMD values assessed at different tube currents did not differ significantly (p ≥ 0.20 for all), suggesting that the presented method could be applied to scout scans with different settings. Finally, data derived from sample patients were concordant with BMD values from a reference age-matched population.

Conclusions

Based on dual-layer spectral scout scans, aBMD measurements were fast and reliable and significantly correlated with the according DXA measurements in phantoms. Considering the number of CT acquisitions performed worldwide, this method could allow truly opportunistic osteoporosis screening.

Key Points

• 2D scout scans (localizer radiographs) from a dual-layer spectral CT scanner, which are mandatory parts of a CT examination, can be used to automatically determine areal bone mineral density (aBMD) at the spine.

• The presented method allowed fast (< 25 s/patient), semi-automatic, and reliable DXA-equivalent aBMD measurements for state-of-the-art DXA phantoms at different tube settings and for various patient habitus, as well as for sample patients.

• Considering the number of CT scout scan acquisitions performed worldwide on a daily basis, the presented technique could enable truly opportunistic osteoporosis screening with DXA-equivalent metrics, without involving higher radiation exposure since it only processes existing data that is acquired during each CT scan.

Keywords

Multidetector computed tomography Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry Bone density Osteoporosis Spine 

Abbreviations

ANCOVA

Analysis of covariance (a statistical analysis technique)

AP

Antero-posterior

BMC

Bone mineral content (g)

BMD

Bone mineral density (mg/mL), sometimes also used for areal bone mineral density (aBMD, g/cm2)

CV

Coefficient of variation

DXA, DEXA

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

ESP

European Spine Phantom

HA

Calcium-hydroxyapatite, the main mineral component of bone

IV

Intravenous (contrast agent)

QCT

Quantitative computed tomography

VMSI

Virtual mono-energetic scout image

Notes

Funding

We acknowledge support through QRM for providing the ESP phantom, the German Department of Education and Research (BMBF) under grant IMEDO (13GW0072C), the German Research Foundation (DFG - Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz program), and the DFG within the Research Training Group GRK 2274.

K.B, L.C.F., and R.P. are employees of Philips. The remaining authors have no financial disclosures and had complete, unrestricted access to the study data at all stages of the study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is PD Dr. Peter B. Noël.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• prospective

• diagnostic study/experimental

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2019_6005_MOESM1_ESM.docx (25 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 24 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M et al (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden: a report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Häussler B, Gothe H, Göl D, Glaeske G, Pientka L, Felsenberg D (2007) Epidemiology, treatment and costs of osteoporosis in Germany - the BoneEVA study. Osteoporos Int 18(1):77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glüer CC (2017) 30 years of DXA technology innovations. Bone 104:7–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2017.05.020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Curtis JR, Carbone L, Cheng H et al (2008) Longitudinal trends in use of bone mass measurement among older Americans, 1999-2005. J Bone Miner Res 23(7):1061–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Link TM (2012) Osteoporosis imaging: state of the art and advanced imaging. Radiology 263(1):3–17.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12110462 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brett AD, Brown JK (2015) Quantitative computed tomography and opportunistic bone density screening by dual use of computed tomography scans. J Orthop Translat 3(4):178–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2015.08.006 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Damilakis J, Adams JE, Guglielmi G, Link TM (2010) Radiation exposure in X-ray-based imaging techniques used in osteoporosis. Eur Radiol 20(11):2707–2714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schwaiger BJ, Kopperdahl DL, Nardo L et al (2017) Vertebral and femoral bone mineral density and bone strength in prostate cancer patients assessed in phantomless PET/CT examinations. Bone 101:62–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2017.04.008
  9. 9.
    Patel AA, Maver DW, Siegel EL (2010) The CT scout exam: a survey of radiation dose, utilization, and opportunity for substantial dose reduction. In: Radiological Society of North America 2010 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting. ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bohrer E, Schäfer S, Mäder U, Noël PB, Krombach GA, Fiebich M (2017) Optimizing radiation exposure for CT localizer radiographs. Z Med Phys 27(2):145–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2016.09.004
  11. 11.
    Schmidt B, Saltybaeva N, Kolditz D, Kalender WA (2013) Assessment of patient dose from CT localizer radiographs. Med Phys 40(8):084301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alvarez RE, Macovski A (1976) Energy-selective reconstructions in X-ray computerised tomography. Phys Med Biol 21(5):2 Available from: http://stacks.iop.org/0031-9155/21/i=5/a=002?key=crossref.9250d07732e8ba4c630ab8afe8ccd214 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Hamersvelt RW, Schilham AMR, Engelke K et al (2017) Accuracy of bone mineral density quantification using dual-layer spectral detector CT: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 27(10):4351–4359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mei K, Schwaiger BJ, Kopp FK et al (2017) Bone mineral density measurements in vertebral specimens and phantoms using dual-layer spectral computed tomography. Sci Rep 7(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L, Fletcher JG (2015) Dual- and multi-energy CT: principles, technical approaches, and clinical applications. Radiology 276(3):637–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vlassenbroek A (2011) Dual layer CT. In: Johnson T, Fink C, Schönberg S, Reiser M (eds) Dual Energy CT in Clinical Practice. Medical Radiology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 21–34Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ehn S, Sellerer T, Muenzel D et al (2018) Assessment of quantification accuracy and image quality of a full-body dual-layer spectral CT system. J Appl Clin Med Phys 19(1):204–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carmi R, Naveh G, Altman A (2005) Material separation with dual-layer CT. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 4:1876–1878Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kalender WA, Felsenberg D, Genant HK, Fischer M, Dequeker J, Reeve J (1995) The European Spine Phantom - a tool for standardization and quality control in spinal bone mineral measurements by DXA and QCT. Eur J Radiol 20(2):83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yu EW, Thomas BJ, Brown JK, Finkelstein JS (2012) Simulated increases in body fat and errors in bone mineral density measurements by DXA and QCT. J Bone Miner Res 27(1):119–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wu XP, Liao EY, Huang G, Dai RC, Zhang H (2003) A comparison study of the reference curves of bone mineral density at different skeletal sites in native Chinese, Japanese, and American Caucasian women. Calcif Tissue Int 73(2):122–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bonnick SL (2008) Monitoring changes in bone density. Womens Health (Lond) 4(1):89–97.  https://doi.org/10.2217/17455057.4.1.89
  23. 23.
    Aubert B, Vazquez C, Cresson T, Parent S, De Guise J (2016) Automatic spine and pelvis detection in frontal X-rays using deep neural networks for patch displacement learning. Proc - Int Symp Biomed Imaging; 2016–June:1426–9Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pourmorteza A, Symons R, Sandfort V et al (2016) Abdominal imaging with contrast-enhanced photon-counting CT: first human experience. Radiology 279(1):239–245.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152601 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Taguchi K, Iwanczyk JS (2013) Vision 20/20: single photon counting x-ray detectors in medical imaging. Med Phys 40(10):100901.  https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4820371 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Muenzel D, Bar-Ness D, Roessl E et al (2016) Spectral photon-counting CT: initial experience with dual–contrast agent K-edge colonography. Radiology 283(3):723–728Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gutjahr R, Halaweish AF, Yu Z et al (2016) Human imaging with photon-counting-based CT at clinical dose levels: contrast-to-noise ratio and cadaver studies. Invest Radiol 51(7):421–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Willemink MJ, Persson M, Pourmorteza A, Pelc NJ, Fleischmann D (2018) Photon-counting CT: technical principles and clinical prospects. Radiology 172656.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018172656
  29. 29.
    Dangelmaier J, Bar-Ness D, Daerr H et al (2018) Experimental feasibility of spectral photon-counting computed tomography with two contrast agents for the detection of endoleaks following endovascular aortic repair. Eur Radiol 28(8):3318–3325Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cormode DP, Si-Mohamed S, Bar-Ness D et al (2017) Multicolor spectral photon-counting computed tomography: in vivo dual contrast imaging with a high count rate scanner. Sci Rep 7(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexis Laugerette
    • 1
    • 2
  • Benedikt J. Schwaiger
    • 1
  • Kevin Brown
    • 3
  • Lena C. Frerking
    • 4
  • Felix K. Kopp
    • 1
  • Kai Mei
    • 1
  • Thorsten Sellerer
    • 2
  • Jan Kirschke
    • 5
  • Thomas Baum
    • 5
  • Alexandra S. Gersing
    • 1
  • Daniela Pfeiffer
    • 1
  • Alexander A. Fingerle
    • 1
  • Ernst J. Rummeny
    • 1
  • Roland Proksa
    • 4
  • Peter B. Noël
    • 1
    • 6
    Email author
  • Franz Pfeiffer
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum rechts der IsarTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Biomedical Physics & Munich School of BioEngineeringTechnical University of MunichGarchingGermany
  3. 3.Philips HealthcareClevelandUSA
  4. 4.Philips Research LaboratoriesHamburgGermany
  5. 5.Section of Diagnostic and Interventional NeuroradiologyTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany
  6. 6.Department of Radiology, Perelman School of MedicineUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations