HR-pQCT cross-calibration using standard vs. Laplace-Hamming binarization approach.

Abstract

High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) has emerged as a powerful imaging technique for characterizing bone microarchitecture in the human peripheral skeleton. The second-generation HR-pQCT scanner provides improved spatial resolution and a shorter scan time. However, the transition from the first-generation (XCTI) to second-generation HR-pQCT scanners (XCTII) poses challenges for longitudinal studies, multi-center trials, and comparison to historical data. Cross-calibration, an established approach for determining relationships between measurements obtained from different devices, can bridge this gap and enable the utilization and comparison of legacy data. The goal of this study was to establish cross-calibration equations to estimate XCTII measurements from XCTI data, using both the standard and Laplace-Hamming (LH) binarization approaches. Thirty-six volunteers (26-85yr) were recruited and their radii and tibiae were scanned on both XCTI and XCTII scanners. XCTI images were analyzed using the manufacturer's standard protocol. XCTII images were analyzed twice: using the manufacturer's standard protocol and the LH segmentation approach previously developed and validated by our team. Linear regression analysis was used to establish cross-calibration equations. Results demonstrated strong correlations between XCTI and XCTII density and geometry outcomes. For most microstructural outcomes, although there were considerable differences in absolute values, correlations between measurements obtained from different scanners were strong, allowing for accurate cross-calibration estimations. For some microstructural outcomes with a higher sensitivity to spatial resolution (eg, trabecular thickness, cortical pore diameter), XCTII standard protocol resulted in poor correlations between the scanners, while our LH approach improved these correlations and decreased the difference in absolute values and the proportional bias for other measurements. For these reasons and due to the improved accuracy of our LH approach compared with the standard approach, as established in our previous study, we propose that investigators should use the LH approach for analyzing XCTII scans, particularly when comparing to XCTI data.