Vertebral Bone Mineral Density Measured by Quantitative Computed Tomography With and Without a Calibration Phantom: A Comparison Between 2 Different Software Solutions

Quantitative computed tomography (CT) can be used to quantify bone mineral density (BMD) in the spine from clinical CT scans. We aimed to determine agreement and precision of BMD measurements by 2 different methods: phantom-less internal tissue calibration and asynchronous phantom-based calibration in a cohort of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Patients with CKD were recruited for CT angiography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. BMD was analyzed by 2 different software solutions using different calibration techniques; phantom-based by QCT Pro (Mindways Inc.) and phantom-less by Extended Brilliance Workspace (Philips Healthcare). Intraoperator reanalysis was performed on 53 patients (36%) for both methods. An interoperator reanalysis on 30 patients (20%) using the phantom-based method and 29 patients (19%) using the phantom-less method was made. XY- and Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate method agreement. Phantom-based measured BMD was systematically higher than phantom-less measured BMD. Despite a small absolute difference of 3.3 mg/cm3 (CI: -0.2–6.9 mg/cm3) and a relative difference of 5.1% (CI: 2.2%–8.1%), interindividual differences were large, as seen by a wide prediction interval (PI: -47–40 mg/cm3). The Bland-Altman plot showed no systematic bias, apart from 5 outliers. Intraoperator variability was high for the phantom-less method (5.8%) compared to the phantom-based (0.8%) and the interoperator variability was also high for the phantom-less method (5.8%) compared to the phantom-based (1.8%). Despite high correlation between methods, the between-method difference on an individual level showed great variability. Our results suggest agreement between these 2 methods is insufficient to allow them to be used interchangeably in patients with CKD

Thoracic Bone Mineral Density Derived from Cardiac CT Is Associated with Greater Fracture Rate

Background Osteoporosis is a prevalent, under-diagnosed, and treatable disease associated with increased fracture risk. Bone mineral density (BMD) derived from cardiac CT may be used to determine fracture rate. Purpose To assess the association between fracture rate and thoracic BMD derived from cardiac CT. Materials and Methods This prospective cohort study included consecutive participants referred for cardiac CT for evaluation of ischemic heart disease between September 2014 and March 2016. End of follow-up was June 30, 2018. In all participants, volumetric BMD of three thoracic vertebrae was measured by using quantitative CT software. The primary and secondary outcomes were any incident fracture and any incident osteoporosis-related fracture registered in the National Patient Registry, respectively. Hazard ratios were assessed by using BMD categorized as very low (120 mg/cm3). The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02264717). Results In total, 1487 participants (mean age, 57 years ± 9; age range, 40-80 years; 52.5% women) were included, of whom 179 (12.0%) had very low BMD. During follow-up (median follow-up, 3.1 years; interquartile range, 2.7-3.4 years; range, 0.2-3.8 years), 80 of 1487 (5.3%) participants were diagnosed with an incident fracture and in 31 of 80 participants, the fracture was osteoporosis related. In unadjusted Cox regressions analyses, very low BMD was association with a greater rate of any fracture (hazard ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4, 4.7; P = .002) and any osteoporosis-related fracture (hazard ratio, 8.1; 95% CI: 2.4, 26.7; P = .001) compared with normal BMD. After adjusting for age and sex, very low BMD remained associated with any fracture (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 4.2) and any osteoporosis-related fracture (hazard ratio, 4.0; 95% CI: 1.1, 14.6). Conclusion Routine cardiac CT can be used to help measure thoracic bone mineral density (BMD) to identify individuals who have low BMD and a greater fracture rate. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bredella in this issue.status: publishe