European Radiology

, 19:172

Can abdominal multi-detector CT diagnose spinal osteoporosis?

  • Antonios E. Papadakis
  • Apostolos H. Karantanas
  • Giorgos Papadokostakis
  • Effie Petinellis
  • John Damilakis
Musculoskeletal

Abstract

The aim of this study was to (1) generate quantitative CT (QCT) densitometric data based on routine abdominal multi-detector (MDCT) examinations and (2) investigate whether these data can be used to differentiate osteoporotic from healthy females. Twenty-five female patients (group A) with a history of radiotherapy were examined both with routine abdominal MDCT and standard QCT to generate a MDCT-to-QCT conversion equation. Twenty-one osteoporotic (group B) and 23 healthy female patients (group C) were also recruited in the study. Patients of groups B and C underwent routine abdominal MDCT examination for various clinical indications. Mean bone mineral density (BMD) in patients of group A was 103.4 mg/ml ± 32.8 with routine abdominal MDCT and 91.0 mg/ml ± 28.5 with QCT. Quantitative CT BMDQCT values for patients in groups B and C were calculated utilizing the BMDMDCT values derived from routine abdominal MDCT data sets and the MDCT to QCT conversion equation: \({\text{BMD}}_{{\text{QCT}}} = 0.78 \cdot {\text{BMD}}_{{\text{MDCT}}} + 10.13\). The calculated QCT densitometric data adequately differentiated osteoporotic from healthy females (area under ROC curve 0.828, p = 0.05). In conclusion, this study showed that in a group of female patients, QCT data derived from routine abdominal MDCT examinations discriminated osteoporotic from healthy subjects.

Keywords

Osteoporosis Multi-detector CT Abdominal imaging CT densitometry Image analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Lau EMO (2001) Epidemiology of osteoporosis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 15:335–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guglielmi G, Lang TF (2002) Quantitative computed tomography. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 6:219–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karantanas AH, Kalef-Ezra JA, Glaros DC (1996) Quantitative computed tomography for bone mineral measurement: technical aspects, dosimetry, normal data and clinical applications. Br J Radiol 64:298–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Link TM, Majumdar S, Grampp S, Guglielmi G, van Kuijk C, Imhof H, Gluer C, Admas JE (1999) Imaging of trabecular bone structure in osteoporosis. Eur Radiol 9:1781–1788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Link TM, Guglielmi G, van Kuijk C, Adams JE (2005) Radiologic assessment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Eur Radiol 15:1521–1532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grampp S, Genant HK, Mathur A, Lang P, Jergas M, Takada M, Gluer CC, Lu Y, Chavez M (1997) Comparisons of non-invasive bone mineral measurements in assessing age-related loss, fracture discrimination and diagnostic classification. J Bone Min Res 12:697–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lang TF, Guglielmi G, van Kuijk C, De Serio A, Cammisa M, Genant HK (2002) Measurement of bone mineral density at the spine and proximal femur by volumetric quantitative computed tomography and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in elderly women with and without vertebral fractures. Bone 30:247–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Link T, Koppers B, Licht T, Bauer J, Lu Y, Rummeny EJ (2004) In vitro and in vivo spiral CT to determine bone mineral density: initial experience in patients at risk for osteoporosis. Radiology 231:805–811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hopper KD, Wang MO, Kunselman AR (2000) The use of clinical CT for baseline bone density assessment. J Comput Assist Tomogr 24:896–899PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weishaupt D, Schweitzer A, DiCuccio M, Whitley P (2001) Relationships of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar bone mineral density by quantitative CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 25:146–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalender W, Suess C (1987) A new calibration phantom for quantitative computed tomography. Med Phys 14:863–866PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalra M, Maher M, Toth T et al (2004) Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 230:619–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brown JP, Josse RG, for the Scientific Advisory Council of the osteoporosis Society of Canada (2002) 2002 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. CMAJ 167(suppl.10):S1–S34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blake GM, Fogelman I (1998) Applications of bone densitometry for osteoporosis. Endocrinol Metab Clin N Am 27:267–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonios E. Papadakis
    • 1
  • Apostolos H. Karantanas
    • 2
  • Giorgos Papadokostakis
    • 3
  • Effie Petinellis
    • 4
  • John Damilakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of CreteIraklionGreece
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of CreteIraklionGreece
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of MedicineUniversity Hospital of HeraklionIraklionGreece
  4. 4.Department of Radiotherapy, Faculty of MedicineUniversity Hospital of HeraklionIraklionGreece

Personalised recommendations