X-ray-based quantitative osteoporosis imaging at the spine

Löffler, Maximilian T.; Sollmann, Nico; Mei, Kai; Valentinitsch, Alexander; Noël, Peter B.; Kirschke, Jan S.; Baum, Thomas

doi:10.1007/s00198-019-05212-2

Cited by 76 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 94 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We used in-house-developed SIR for MDCT with virtually lowered tube currents and sparse sampling, respectively. Advanced reconstruction methods such as IR have potential to further suppress noise in imaging data, which increases image quality and can therefore allow for further restrictions in radiation exposure from scanning without relevant loss of structural image information [17,[19][20][21][22][23]. A study investigating the feasibility of SIR in predicting MDCT-based BMD and vertebral bone strength from FE analysis in comparison to data reconstructed with FBP revealed that SIR produced images of the best quality with regard to noise, signal-to-noise, and contrast-to-noise ratios [36].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This can result in preserved image quality while the influence of electronic readout noise on image quality can be circumvented. When combined with advanced image reconstruction, such as statistical IR (SIR), image noise could be further suppressed and radiation doses lowered while structural image information can be preserved [17,[19][20][21][22][23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Low-dose MDCT: evaluation of the impact of systematic tube current reduction and sparse sampling on the detection of degenerative spine diseases

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To investigate potential radiation dose reduction for multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) exams of the spine by using sparse sampling and virtually lowered tube currents combined with statistical iterative reconstruction (SIR). Methods MDCT data of 26 patients (68.9 ± 11.7 years, 42.3% males) were retrospectively simulated as if the scans were acquired at 50%, 10%, 5%, and 3% of the original X-ray tube current or number of projections, using SIR for image reconstructions. Two readers performed qualitative image evaluation considering overall image quality, artifacts, and contrast and determined the number and type of degenerative changes. Scoring was compared between readers and virtual low-dose and sparse-sampled MDCT, respectively. Results Image quality and contrast decreased with virtual lowering of tube current and sparse sampling, but all degenerative changes were correctly detected in MDCT with 50% of tube current as well as MDCT with 50% of projections. Sparse-sampled MDCT with only 10% of initial projections still enabled correct identification of all degenerative changes, in contrast to MDCT with virtual tube current reduction by 90% where non-calcified disc herniations were frequently missed (R1: 23.1%, R2: 21.2% non-diagnosed herniations). The average volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol) was 1.4 mGy for MDCT with 10% of initial projections, compared with 13.8 mGy for standard-dose imaging. Conclusions MDCT with 50% of original tube current or projections using SIR still allowed for accurate diagnosis of degenerative changes. Sparse sampling may be more promising for further radiation dose reductions since no degenerative changes were missed with 10% of initial projections. Key Points • Most common degenerative changes of the spine can be diagnosed in multi-detector CT with 50% of tube current or number of projections. • Sparse-sampled multi-detector CT with only 10% of initial projections still enables correct identification of degenerative changes, in contrast to imaging with 10% of original tube current. • Sparse sampling may be a promising option for distinct lowering of radiation dose, reducing the CTDIvolfrom 13.8 to 1.4 mGy in the study cohort.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-dose MDCT: evaluation of the impact of systematic tube current reduction and sparse sampling on the detection of degenerative spine diseases

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…46 Trabecular volumetric BMD (vBMD) by single-energy QCT is a more accurate, although less practical, reference standard for noninvasive vBMD assessment. 47 With QCT, osteopenia is defined as a trabecular BMD < 120 mg/cm 3 ; osteoporosis is defined as a trabecular BMD < 80 mg/cm 3 . 8 Radiation dose for lumbar QCT is $ 1 mSv for men and 1.6 mSv for women, many times higher than lumbar DXA (1-6 μSV) but comparable with lumbar spine radiography (0.7-2 MSv).…”

Section: Bone Mineral Densitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8 Radiation dose for lumbar QCT is $ 1 mSv for men and 1.6 mSv for women, many times higher than lumbar DXA (1-6 μSV) but comparable with lumbar spine radiography (0.7-2 MSv). 47,48 Using spectral detection CT as a feature of dual-energy CT, vBMD can be quantified without using a calibration phantom ("phantomless") yielding high correlation with standard QCT assessment (r ¼ 0.987). 49 Partial volume averaging due to bone voxels that contain fat will reduce trabecular vBMD measurement by single- energy QCT by $ 15%.…”

Section: Bone Mineral Densitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Advanced Quantitative Spine Imaging

Griffith¹

2020

Semin Musculoskelet Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although advanced quantitative imaging may not be currently used to any degree in the routine reporting of spinal examinations, this situation will change in the not too distant future. Advanced quantitative imaging has already allowed us to understand a great deal more regarding spinal development, marrow physiology, and disease pathogenesis. Radiologists are ideally suited to drive this research forward. To speed up this process and optimize the impact of studies reporting spine quantitative data, we should work toward universal standards on the acquisition of spine data that will allow quantitative studies to be more easily compared, contrasted, and amalgamated.

show abstract

“…The drawback with the DXA technique is its relatively high cost in addition to it not being available everywhere resulting in many osteoporosis patients not being offered this examination [35][36][37][38][39][40]. Other techniques for measuring BMD, such as quantitative computed tomography (QCT) [41], quantitative ultrasound (QUS) [42], peripheral DXA (pDXA) [43] and Digital X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR) [44] have been proposed but so far not gained general recognition in osteoporosis care [45]. DXR is a peripheral measurement method which uses a standard radiograph of the hand to derive a computed BMD equivalent measurement.…”

Section: What Makes a Good Test?mentioning

confidence: 99%