1
|
CT Phantom Evaluation of 67,392 American College of Radiology Accreditation Examinations: Implications for Opportunistic Screening of Osteoporosis Using CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020; 216:447-452. [PMID: 32755177 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.20.22943] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether systematic bias in attenuation measurements occurs among CT scanners made by four major manufacturers and the relevance of this bias regarding opportunistic screening for osteoporosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Data on attenuation measurement accuracy were acquired using the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom and were evaluated in a blinded fashion for four CT manufacturers (8500 accreditation submissions for manufacturer A; 18,575 for manufacturer B; 8278 for manufacturer C; and 32,039 for manufacturer D). The attenuation value for water, acrylic (surrogate for trabecular bone), and Teflon (surrogate for cortical bone; Chemours) materials for an adult abdominal CT technique (120 kV, 240 mA, standard reconstruction algorithm) was used in the analysis. Differences in attenuation value across all manufacturers were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a post hoc test for pairwise comparisons. RESULTS. The mean attenuation value for water ranged from -0.3 to 2.7 HU, with highly significant differences among all manufacturers (p < 0.001). For the trabecular bone surrogate, differences in attenuation values across all manufacturers were also highly significant (p < 0.001), with mean values of 120.9 (SD, 3.5), 124.6 (3.3), 126.9 (4.4), and 123.9 (3.4) HU for manufacturers A, B, C, and D, respectively. For the cortical bone surrogate, differences in attenuation values across all manufacturers were also highly significant (p < 0.001), with mean values of 939.0 (14.2), 874.3 (13.3), 897.6 (11.3), and 912.7 (13.4) HU for manufacturers A, B, C, and D, respectively. CONCLUSION. CT scanners made by different manufacturers show systematic offsets in attenuation measurement when compared with each other. Knowledge of these off-sets is useful for optimizing the accuracy of opportunistic diagnosis of osteoporosis.
Collapse
|
2
|
Rothmann MJ, Möller S, Holmberg T, Højberg M, Gram J, Bech M, Brixen K, Hermann AP, Glüer CC, Barkmann R, Rubin KH. Non-participation in systematic screening for osteoporosis-the ROSE trial. Osteoporos Int 2017; 28:3389-3399. [PMID: 28875257 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-017-4205-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2017] [Accepted: 08/21/2017] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Population-based screening for osteoporosis is still controversial and has not been implemented. Non-participation in systematic screening was evaluated in 34,229 women age 65-81 years. Although participation rate was high, non-participation was associated with comorbidity, aging other risk factors for fractures, and markers of low social status, e.g., low income, pension, and living alone. A range of strategies is needed to increase participation, including development of targeted information and further research to better understand the barriers and enablers in screening for osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION Participation is crucial to the success of a screening program. The objective of this study was to analyze non-participation in Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation, a two-step population-based screening program for osteoporosis. METHODS Thirty-four thousand two hundred twenty-nine women aged 65 to 81 years were randomly selected from the background population and randomized to either a screening group (intervention) or a control group. All women received a self-administered questionnaire designed to allow calculation of future risk of fracture based on FRAX. In the intervention group, women with an estimated high risk of future fracture were invited to DXA scanning. Information on individual socioeconomic status and comorbidity was obtained from national registers. RESULTS A completed questionnaire was returned by 20,905 (61%) women. Non-completion was associated with older age, living alone, lower education, lower income, and higher comorbidity. In the intervention group, ticking "not interested in DXA" in the questionnaire was associated with older age, living alone, and low self-perceived fracture risk. Women with previous fracture or history of parental hip fracture were more likely to accept screening by DXA. Dropping out when offered DXA, was associated with older age, current smoking, higher alcohol consumption, and physical impairment. CONCLUSIONS Barriers to population-based screening for osteoporosis appear to be both psychosocial and physical in nature. Women who decline are older, have lower self-perceived fracture risk, and more often live alone compared to women who accept the program. Dropping out after primary acceptance is associated not only with aging and physical impairment but also with current smoking and alcohol consumption. Measures to increase program participation could include targeted information and reducing physical barriers for attending screening procedures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M J Rothmann
- Department of Endocrinology, Odense University Hospital, Kloevervaenget 10, 6.sal, 5000, Odense C, Odense, Denmark.
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
| | - S Möller
- Odense Patient Data Explorative Network (OPEN), Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - T Holmberg
- Department of Health Promotion and Prevention, National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - M Højberg
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Research, Hospital of Southern Norway, Kristiansand, Norway
| | - J Gram
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Endocrinology, Hospital of Southwest Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark
| | - M Bech
- KORA, the Danish Institute for Local and Regional Government Research, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - K Brixen
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - A P Hermann
- Department of Endocrinology, Odense University Hospital, Kloevervaenget 10, 6.sal, 5000, Odense C, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - C-C Glüer
- Section Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, Christian-Albrechts-Universitäts zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - R Barkmann
- Section Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, Christian-Albrechts-Universitäts zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - K H Rubin
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Odense Patient Data Explorative Network (OPEN), Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|