Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Sep 11.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-025-11988-1. Online ahead of print.

Opportunistic osteoporosis assessment from routine CT-effect of intravenous contrast agents on absolute values, T-scores, and derived classifications in single- and dual-energy CT

Jennifer Gotta  1 , Vitali Koch  2 , Scherwin Mahmoudi  2 , Simon S Martin  2 , Jan Erik Scholtz  2 , Christian Booz  2 , Katrin Eichler  2 , Simon Bernatz  2 , Philipp Reschke  2 , Tatjana Gruber-Rouh  2 , Tommaso D'Angelo  3 , Thomas J Vogl  2 , Leon D Gruenewald  2
Affiliations

Opportunistic osteoporosis assessment from routine CT-effect of intravenous contrast agents on absolute values, T-scores, and derived classifications in single- and dual-energy CT

Jennifer Gotta et al. Eur Radiol. .

Abstract

Objectives: Computed tomography (CT) is widely used for bone health assessment, impacting osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment. However, the influence of intravenous contrast agents on CT-based bone mineral density (BMD) measurements remains debated. This study evaluates the effect of contrast agents on Hounsfield measurements, T-scores, and Z-scores, assessing their impact on diagnostic accuracy to reduce misclassification and optimize CT-based BMD assessment.

Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis of 597 patients (median age: 66 years, 157 females, 440 males) was performed using dual-energy CT (DECT) scans of the abdomen and chest. All patients underwent non-contrast, arterial, and venous phase CT. Automated segmentation (nnU-Net) delineated L1 and L1-L4 trabecular bone, validated by two radiologists. T-scores were calculated according to DEXA-equivalent guidelines.

Results: Based on non-contrast CT, 35% were diagnosed with osteoporosis, 46% with osteopenia, and 18% had normal bone status. Median T-score was -2.0 (L1) and -2.1 (L1-L4) (p < 0.001). Contrast agents significantly altered BMD values, with median changes of 22.9% (arterial) and 20.1% (venous). The most pronounced changes occurred in patients under 50 years (+99% at L1, p < 0.001). In older females, 21% were misclassified as osteopenic instead of osteoporotic (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Contrast agents significantly affect BMD measurements, leading to diagnostic misclassification. This effect should be considered when using CT for osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment planning.

Key points: Question Standard CT scans with contrast media may distort bone density measurements, potentially leading to misdiagnosis of osteoporosis and inappropriate clinical decisions. Findings Contrast-enhanced CT scans significantly alter T- and Z-scores, leading to diagnostic shifts in over 50% of patients, especially women over 50. Clinical relevance Our findings highlight the risk of osteoporosis misclassification due to contrast agents in CT imaging, underscoring the need for adjusted interpretation protocols to ensure accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment, particularly in older adults and female patients.

Keywords: Body composition; Computed tomography; Contrast media; Osteoporosis; Trabecular bone.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Compliance with ethical standards. Guarantor: The scientific guarantor of this publication is the head of the department, Professor Thomas J. Vogl. Conflict of interest: C.B. received speaking fees from Siemens Healthineers. V.K. received travel support from Siemens Healthineers. Statistics and biometry: No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Informed consent: Retrospective study design. Ethical approval: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Study subjects or cohorts overlap: No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: Retrospective Single-center study

References

    1. Zhu Z, Yu P, Wu Y et al (2023) Sex specific global burden of osteoporosis in 204 countries and territories, from 1990 to 2030: an age-period-cohort modeling study. J Nutr Health Aging 27:767–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-023-1971-4 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Cauley JA (2013) Public health impact of osteoporosis. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 68:1243–1251. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glt093 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Hopkins RB, Burke N, Von Keyserlingk C et al (2016) The current economic burden of illness of osteoporosis in Canada. Osteoporos Int 27:3023–3032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3631-6 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Osteoporosis Imaging: State of the Art and Advanced Imaging (2024) Radiology. Zugegriffen: 8. Juli 2024. [Online]. Verfügbar unter: https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.12110462
    1. Areeckal AS, Kocher M, S DS (2019) Current and emerging diagnostic imaging-based techniques for assessment of osteoporosis and fracture risk. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 12:254–268. https://doi.org/10.1109/RBME.2018.2852620 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources