Uder, Michael

ABSTRACT Opportunistic screening is a new promising technique to identify individuals at high risk for osteoporotic fracture using computed tomography (CT) scans originally acquired for an clinical purpose unrelated to osteoporosis. In these CT scans, a calibration phantom traditionally required to convert measured CT values to bone mineral density (BMD) is missing. As an alternative, phantomless calibration has been developed. This study aimed to review the principles of four existing phantomless calibration methods and to compare their performance against the gold standard of simultaneous calibration (ΔBMD). All methods were applied to a dataset of 350 females scanned with a highly standardized CT protocol (DS1) and to a second dataset of 114 patients (38 female) from clinical routine covering a large range of CT acquisition and reconstruction parameters (DS2). Three of the phantomless calibration methods must be precalibrated with a reference dataset containing a calibration phantom. Sixty scans from DS1 and 57 from DS2 were randomly selected for this precalibration. For each phantomless calibration method first the best combination of internal reference materials (IMs) was selected. These were either air and blood or subcutaneous adipose tissue, blood, and cortical bone. In addition, for phantomless calibration a fifth method based on average calibration parameters derived from the reference dataset was applied. For DS1, ΔBMD results (mean ± standard deviation) for the phantomless calibration methods requiring a precalibration ranged from 0.1 ± 2.7 mg/cm3 to 2.4 ± 3.5 mg/cm3 with similar means but significantly higher standard deviations for DS2. Performance of the phantomless calibration method, which does not require a precalibration was worse (ΔBMD DS1: 12.6 ± 13.2 mg/cm3, DS2: 0.5 ± 8.8 mg/cm3). In conclusion, phantomless BMD calibration performs well if precalibrated with a reference dataset. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Although mammography screening programs do not include ultrasound examinations, some diagnostic units do provide women with both mammography and ultrasonography. This article is concerned with estimating the risk of a breast cancer patient diagnosed in a hospital‐based mammography unit having a tumor that is visible on ultrasound but not on mammography. A total of 1,399 women with invasive breast cancer from a hospital‐based diagnostic mammography unit were included in this retrospective study. For inclusion, mammograms from the time of the primary diagnosis had to be available for computer‐assisted assessment of percentage mammographic density (PMD), as well as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) assessment of mammography. In addition, ultrasound findings were available for the complete cohort as part of routine diagnostic procedures, regardless of any patient or imaging characteristics. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors of mammography failure, defined as BIRADS assessment 1 or 2. The probability that the visibility of a tumor might be masked at diagnosis was estimated using a regression model with the identified predictors. Tumors were only visible on ultrasound in 107 cases (7.6%). PMD was the strongest predictor for mammography failure, but age, body mass index and previous breast surgery also influenced the risk, independently of the PMD. Risk probabilities ranged from 1% for a defined low‐risk group up to 40% for a high‐risk group. These findings might help identify women who should be offered ultrasound examinations in addition to mammography.