Academic Radiology
Volume 16, Issue 2 , Pages 150-159 , February 2009

Helical Multidetector Row Quantitative Computed Tomography (QCT) Precision

  • Michael Bligh, MS

      Affiliations

    • Radiation Oncology Centers of Southwest Florida, Bradenton, FL
    • ,
  • Luc Bidaut, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Imaging Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 56, Houston, TX 77030
    • ,
  • R. Allen White, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics & Applied Mathematics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 56, Houston, TX 77030
    • ,
  • William A. Murphy Jr., MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 56, Houston, TX 77030
    • ,
  • Donna M. Stevens, MS

      Affiliations

    • Department of Imaging Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 56, Houston, TX 77030
    • ,
  • Dianna D. Cody, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Imaging Physics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 56, Houston, TX 77030
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: D.D.C.

Received 3 October 2007 ,Accepted 8 August 2008.

References 

  1. Genant HK. Current assessment of osteoporosis: proceedings of an international symposium convened during ECR'95 in Vienna, Austria. Eur J Radiol. 1995;20:163–164
  2. Raggi P, Bellasi A, Ferramosca E, et al. Pulse wave velocity is inversely related to vertebral bone density in hemodialysis patients. Hypertension. 2007;49:1278–1284
  3. Bousson V, Le Bras A, Roqueplan F, et al. Volumetric quantitative computed tomography of the proximal femur: relationships linking geometric and densitometric variables to bone strength (Role for compact bone). Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:855–864
  4. Mylona M, Leotsinides M, Alexandrides T, et al. Comparison of DXA, QCT and trabecular structure in beta-thalassaemia. Eur J Haematol. 2005;74:430–437
  5. Rehman Q, Lang T, Modin G, et al. Quantitative computed tomography of the lumbar spine, not dual x-ray absorptiometry, is an independent predictor of prevalent vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteopenia receiving long-term glucocorticoid and hormone-replacement therapy. Arthrit Rheum. 2002;46:1292–1297
  6. Guglielmi G, van Kuijk C, Li J, et al. Influence of anthropometric parameters and bone size on bone mineral density using volumetric quantitative computed tomography and dual x-ray absorptiometry at the hip. Acta Radiol. 2006;47:574–580
  7. McCullough CH, Ulzheimer S, Halliburton SS, et al. Coronary artery calcium: a multi-institutional, multimanufacturer international standard for quantification at cardiac CT. Radiology. 2007;243:527–538
  8. Hong C, Pilgram TK, Zhu F, et al. Improving mass measurement of coronary artery calcification using threshold correction and thin collimation in multi-detector row computed tomography: in vitro experiment. Acad Radiol. 2003;10:969–977
  9. Parr DG, Stoel BC, Stolk J, et al. Influence of calibration on densitometric studies of emphysema progression using computed tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;170:883–890
  10. Buckley JM, Loo K, Motherway J. Comparison of quantitative computed tomography-based measures in predicting vertebral compressive strength. Bone. 2007;40:767–774
  11. Keaveny TM, Donley DW, Hoffmann PF, et al. Effects of teriparatide and alendronate on vertebral strength as assessed by finite element modeling of QCT scans in women with osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:149–157
  12. Lian K-C, Lang TF, Keyak JH, et al. Differences in hip quantitative computed tomography (QCT) measurements of bone mineral density and bone strength between glucocorticoid-treated and glucocorticoid-naive postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:642–650
  13. Crawford RP, Cann CE, Keaveny TM, et al. Finite element models predict in vitro vertebral body compressive strength better than quantitative computed tomography. Bone. 2003;33:744–750
  14. Cann CE. Quantitative CT applications: comparison of current scanners. Radiology. 1987;162:257–261
  15. Ebbesen EN, Thomsen JS, Beck-Nielsen H, et al. Lumbar vertebral body compressive strength evaluated by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, quantitative computed tomography, and ashing. Bone. 1999;25:713–724
  16. Kaneko TS, Pejcic MR, Tehranzadeh J, et al. Relationships between material properties and CT scan data of cortical bone with and without metastatic lesions. Med Eng Phys. 2003;25:445–454
  17. Wigderowitz CA, Paterson CR, Dashti H, et al. Prediction of bone strength from cancellous structure of the distal radius: can we improve on DXA?. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:840–846
  18. Snyder SM, Schneider E. Estimation of mechanical properties of cortical bone by computed tomography. J Orthop Res. 1991;9:422–431
  19. Gampp S, Jergas M, Lang P, et al. Quantitative CT assessment of the lumbar spine and radius in patients with osteoporosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:133–140
  20. Dougherty G. Quantitative CT in the measurement of bone quantity and bone quality for assessing osteoporosis. Med Eng Phys. 1996;18:557–568
  21. Brassow F. Correlations between breaking load and CT absorption values of vertebral bodies. Eur J Radiol 198; 22:99–101.
  22. Genant HK. Quantitative computed tomography: update 1987. Calcif Tissue Int. 1987;41:179–186
  23. Image Analysis (QCT: bone densitometry in user's guide for release 7.2). Columbia, KY: Image Analysis; 2003;
  24. Mindways Software (QCT PRO [computer software] bone mineral densitometry software user's guide). Austin, TX: Mindways Software; 2005;
  25. Gluer CC, Blake G. Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques. Osteoporos Int. 1995;5:262–270
  26. Bevington PR, Robinson DK. Data reduction and error analysis for physical sciences. In: 3rd ed.. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002;p. 48
  27. Kachigan S. Statistical analysis: an interdisciplinary introduction to univariate & multivariate methods. New York: Radius; 1986;
  28. Genant HK, Cann CE, Ettinger B, et al. Quantitative computed tomography for spinal mineral assessment: current status. J Compt Assist Tomogr. 1985;9:602–604
  29. Chafetz N, Genant HK. Computed tomography of the lumbar spine. Orthop Clin North Am. 1983;14:147–169
  30. Hawkinson J, Timins J, Angelo D, et al. Technical white paper: bone densitometry. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;4:320–327
  31. Cann CE, Genant HK. Precise measurement of vertebral mineral content using computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1980;4:493–500
  32. Goodwin PN. Methodologies for the measurement of bone density and their precision and accuracy. Semin Nucl Med. 1987;17:293–304
  33. Jergas M, Genant HK. Current methods and recent advances in the diagnosis of osteoporosis. Arthrit Rheum. 1993;36:1649–1662
  34. Lenchik L, Shi R, Register TC, et al. Measurement of trabecular bone mineral density in the thoracic spine using cardiac gated quantitative computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2004;28:134–139
  35. Wong M, Papa A, Lang T, et al. Validation of thoracic quantitative computed tomography as a method to measure bone mineral density. Calcif Tissue Int. 2005;76:7–10
  36. Hirbe A. Skeletal complications of breast and prostate cancer therapies. In:  Favus MJ editors. Primer on the metabolic bone diseases and disorders of mineral metabolism. Washington, DC: American Society for Bone; 2006;p. 390–395
  37. Link TM, Koppers BB, Licht T, et al. In vitro and in vivo spiral CT to determine bone mineral density: initial experience in patients at risk for osteoporosis. Radiology. 2004;231:805–811

1 This study was supported by the John S. Dunn, Sr. Distinguished Chair in Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.

PII: S1076-6332(08)00499-6

doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.08.007

Academic Radiology
Volume 16, Issue 2 , Pages 150-159 , February 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution