Sophie du Mont, Reinhard Barkmann, Timo Damm, Jaime Peña, Stefan Reinhold, Marcus Both, Meike Mainusch, Claus-Christian Glüer
{"title":"使用同步和异步校准方法以及不同的测量和重建协议进行临床 QCT BMD 测量的长期再现性。","authors":"Sophie du Mont, Reinhard Barkmann, Timo Damm, Jaime Peña, Stefan Reinhold, Marcus Both, Meike Mainusch, Claus-Christian Glüer","doi":"10.1007/s00223-024-01303-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated. To improve timely fracture risk assessment optimized densitometry methods are required such as opportunistic spinal quantitative computed tomography (QCT). However, it is unclear how to best calibrate these scans and correct for potential scanner drift of QCT when used for monitoring bone mineral density (BMD) changes. We compared gold standard simultaneous calibration with asynchronous calibration methods, assessing mid-term (12 weeks) and long-term (1.5 years) reproducibility of BMD measurements. Cortical and trabecular compartments of the European Spine Phantom were studied with ten different protocols including low dose and high resolution (HR)-modes. Based on weekly phantom data, we compared simultaneous calibration to asynchronous single (termed global) or monthly calibration. The accuracy was better for trabecular measurements than for cortical measurements for all calibration methods. Reproducibility was excellent for all methods and slightly better for asynchronous than for simultaneous calibration both for trabecular and cortical bone. For HR protocols, reproducibility was better than for low dose measurements. In trabecular compartments averaged HR-BMD remained stable for global (- 0.1%/year, ns) but not for simultaneous calibration (- 1.5%/year, p < 0.001). No significant drifts could be detected for averaged low dose BMD (- 0.9 to + 0.8%/year) for either calibration method. Our data suggest that with regard to precision and accuracy measurements with asynchronous calibration are suitable for vertebral BMD assessment (no contrast agents) in clinical practice. Regular (e.g., monthly) stability tests using a calibration phantom could assure long term stability of at least 1 year.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11531420/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-Term Reproducibility of BMD-Measurements with Clinical QCT Using Simultaneous and Asynchronous Calibration Methods and Different Measurement and Reconstruction Protocols.\",\"authors\":\"Sophie du Mont, Reinhard Barkmann, Timo Damm, Jaime Peña, Stefan Reinhold, Marcus Both, Meike Mainusch, Claus-Christian Glüer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00223-024-01303-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated. To improve timely fracture risk assessment optimized densitometry methods are required such as opportunistic spinal quantitative computed tomography (QCT). However, it is unclear how to best calibrate these scans and correct for potential scanner drift of QCT when used for monitoring bone mineral density (BMD) changes. We compared gold standard simultaneous calibration with asynchronous calibration methods, assessing mid-term (12 weeks) and long-term (1.5 years) reproducibility of BMD measurements. Cortical and trabecular compartments of the European Spine Phantom were studied with ten different protocols including low dose and high resolution (HR)-modes. Based on weekly phantom data, we compared simultaneous calibration to asynchronous single (termed global) or monthly calibration. The accuracy was better for trabecular measurements than for cortical measurements for all calibration methods. Reproducibility was excellent for all methods and slightly better for asynchronous than for simultaneous calibration both for trabecular and cortical bone. For HR protocols, reproducibility was better than for low dose measurements. In trabecular compartments averaged HR-BMD remained stable for global (- 0.1%/year, ns) but not for simultaneous calibration (- 1.5%/year, p < 0.001). No significant drifts could be detected for averaged low dose BMD (- 0.9 to + 0.8%/year) for either calibration method. Our data suggest that with regard to precision and accuracy measurements with asynchronous calibration are suitable for vertebral BMD assessment (no contrast agents) in clinical practice. Regular (e.g., monthly) stability tests using a calibration phantom could assure long term stability of at least 1 year.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11531420/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-024-01303-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-024-01303-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
Long-Term Reproducibility of BMD-Measurements with Clinical QCT Using Simultaneous and Asynchronous Calibration Methods and Different Measurement and Reconstruction Protocols.
Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated. To improve timely fracture risk assessment optimized densitometry methods are required such as opportunistic spinal quantitative computed tomography (QCT). However, it is unclear how to best calibrate these scans and correct for potential scanner drift of QCT when used for monitoring bone mineral density (BMD) changes. We compared gold standard simultaneous calibration with asynchronous calibration methods, assessing mid-term (12 weeks) and long-term (1.5 years) reproducibility of BMD measurements. Cortical and trabecular compartments of the European Spine Phantom were studied with ten different protocols including low dose and high resolution (HR)-modes. Based on weekly phantom data, we compared simultaneous calibration to asynchronous single (termed global) or monthly calibration. The accuracy was better for trabecular measurements than for cortical measurements for all calibration methods. Reproducibility was excellent for all methods and slightly better for asynchronous than for simultaneous calibration both for trabecular and cortical bone. For HR protocols, reproducibility was better than for low dose measurements. In trabecular compartments averaged HR-BMD remained stable for global (- 0.1%/year, ns) but not for simultaneous calibration (- 1.5%/year, p < 0.001). No significant drifts could be detected for averaged low dose BMD (- 0.9 to + 0.8%/year) for either calibration method. Our data suggest that with regard to precision and accuracy measurements with asynchronous calibration are suitable for vertebral BMD assessment (no contrast agents) in clinical practice. Regular (e.g., monthly) stability tests using a calibration phantom could assure long term stability of at least 1 year.