TY  - JOUR
A1  - Koch, Vitali
A1  - Große Hokamp, Nils
A1  - Albrecht, Moritz Hans Ernst
A1  - Grünewald, Leon David
A1  - Yel, Ibrahim
A1  - Borggrefe, Jan
A1  - Wesarg, Stefan
A1  - Eichler, Katrin
A1  - Burck, Iris
A1  - Gruber-Rouh, Tatjana
A1  - Lenga, Lukas Fabian
A1  - Vogl, Thomas J.
A1  - Martin, Simon
A1  - Wichmann, Julian
A1  - Hammerstingl, Renate Maria
A1  - Alizadeh, Leona Soraja
A1  - Mader, Christoph
A1  - Huizinga, Nicole A.
A1  - D’Angelo, Tommaso
A1  - Ascenti, Giorgio
A1  - Mazziotti, Silvio
A1  - Booz, Christian
T1  - Accuracy and precision of volumetric bone mineral density assessment using dual-source dual-energy versus quantitative CT: a phantom study
T2  - European radiology experimental
N2  - Background: Dual-source dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) offers the potential for opportunistic osteoporosis screening by enabling phantomless bone mineral density (BMD) quantification. This study sought to assess the accuracy and precision of volumetric BMD measurement using dual-source DECT in comparison to quantitative CT (QCT). Methods: A validated spine phantom consisting of three lumbar vertebra equivalents with 50 (L1), 100 (L2), and 200 mg/cm3 (L3) calcium hydroxyapatite (HA) concentrations was scanned employing third-generation dual-source DECT and QCT. While BMD assessment based on QCT required an additional standardised bone density calibration phantom, the DECT technique operated by using a dedicated postprocessing software based on material decomposition without requiring calibration phantoms. Accuracy and precision of both modalities were compared by calculating measurement errors. In addition, correlation and agreement analyses were performed using Pearson correlation, linear regression, and Bland-Altman plots. Results: DECT-derived BMD values differed significantly from those obtained by QCT (p < 0.001) and were found to be closer to true HA concentrations. Relative measurement errors were significantly smaller for DECT in comparison to QCT (L1, 0.94% versus 9.68%; L2, 0.28% versus 5.74%; L3, 0.24% versus 3.67%, respectively). DECT demonstrated better BMD measurement repeatability compared to QCT (coefficient of variance < 4.29% for DECT, < 6.74% for QCT). Both methods correlated well to each other (r = 0.9993; 95% confidence interval 0.9984–0.9997; p < 0.001) and revealed substantial agreement in Bland-Altman plots. Conclusions: Phantomless dual-source DECT-based BMD assessment of lumbar vertebra equivalents using material decomposition showed higher diagnostic accuracy compared to QCT.
KW  - Bone density
KW  - Dual-energy computed tomography
KW  - Osteoporosis
KW  - Phantoms (imaging)
KW  - Tomography (x-ray computed)
Y1  - 2021
UR  - http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/63461
UR  - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3-634611
SN  - 2509-9280
N1  - Open Access funding enabled and organised by Projekt DEAL.
VL  - 5
IS  - art. 43
SP  - 1
EP  - 10
PB  - Springer International Publishing
CY  - [Cham]
ER  -