Osteoporosis International

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 36–42

Cross-calibration of liquid and solid QCT calibration standards: Corrections to the UCSF normative data

  • K. G. Faulkner
  • C. C. Glüer
  • S. Grampp
  • H. K. Genant
Original Article


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×UCSF]-7.32). The UCSF normative database for women and men obtained with the liquid standard was corrected for use with the solid standard. Proper procedures for cross-calibrating QCT measurements and the appropriate uses of normative data are discussed.


Calibration standards Cross-calibration Normative data Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Genant HK, Cann CE, Ettinger, B, Gordan GS. Quantitative computed tomography of vertebral spongiosa: a sensitive method for detecting early bone loss after oophorectomy. Ann Intern Med 1982; 97:699–705.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heuck A, Block J, Glüer CC, Steiger P, Genant HK. Mild versus definite osteoporosis comparison of bone densitometry techniques using different statistical models. J Bone Miner Res 1989;4:891–900.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rüegsegger P, Durand E, Dambacher MA. Localization of regional forearm bone loss from high resolution computed tomographic images. Osteoporosis Int 1991;1:76–80.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schneider P, Börner W, Mazess RB, Barden H. The relationship of peripheral to axial bone density. Bone Miner 1988;4: 279–87.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steiger P, Block JE, Steiger S, et al. Spinal bone mineral density by quantitative computed tomography: effect of region of interest, vertebral level, and technique. Radiology 1990;175:537–43.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faulkner KG, Glüer CC, Majumdar S, Lang P, Engelke K, Genant HK. Noninvasive measurements of bone mass, structure, and strength: current methods and experimental techniques. AJR 1991;157:1229–37.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    NCRP. Exposure of the US population from diagnostic medical radiation. NCRP report no. 100 1989. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Genant HK, Boyd DP. Quantitative bone mineral analysis using dual energy computed tomography. Invest Radiol 1977;12:545–51.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cann CE, Genant HK. Precise measurement of vertebral mineral content using computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1980; 4:493–500.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kalender WA, Süss C. A new calibration phantom for quantitative computed tomography. Med Phys 1987;9:816–19.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cann CE. Quantitative CT applications: comparison of newer CT scanners. Radiology 1987;162:257–61.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Block J, Smith R, Glüer CC, Steiger P, Ettinger B, Genant HK. Models of spinal trabecular bone loss as determined by quantitative computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res 1989;4: 249–57.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faulkner K, Steiger P, Schoen S, Laval-Jeantet A, Genant H. Effect of calibration phantom placement on long-term QCT precision. In: Christiansen C, Overgaard K, editors. Osteoporosis 1990, vol 2. Aalborg, Denmark: Handelstrykkeriet Aalborg Aps, 1990: 653–5.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cann CE, Genant HK, Kolb FO, Ettinger B. Quantitative computed tomography for prediction of vertebral fracture risk. Bone 1985;6:1–7.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goodsitt MM. Solid versus liquid calibration standards for quantitative CT. Radiology 1991;81:206p.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kalender W, Felsenberg D, PolacinA, Helm U. Cross-calibration phantom for spinal bone mineral measurements with quantitative CT and DXA. Radiology 1990;177:306p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Foundation for Osteoporosis 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. G. Faulkner
    • 1
  • C. C. Glüer
    • 1
  • S. Grampp
    • 1
  • H. K. Genant
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Osteoporosis Research GroupUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Osteoporosis Research CenterProvidence Medical CenterPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations