Dual energy computed tomography cannot effectively differentiate between calcium pyrophosphate and basic calcium phosphate diseases in the clinical setting
Mohamed Jarraya, Olivier Bitoun, Dufan Wu, René Balza, Ali Guermazi, Jamie E. Collins, Rajiv Kumar Gupta, G. Petur Nielsen, Elias Guermazi, F. Joseph Simeone, Patrick Omoumi, Christopher M. Melnic, Seonghwan Yee
Abstract
BackgroundRecent reports suggested that dual-energy CT (DECT) may help discriminate between different types of calcium phosphate crystals in vivo, which would have important implications for the characterization of crystal deposition occurring in osteoarthritis.PurposeOur aim was to test the hypothesis that DECT can effectively differentiate basic calcium phosphate (BCP) from calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) deposition diseases.MethodsDiscarded tissue after total knee replacement specimens in a 71 year-old patient with knee osteoarthritis and chondrocalcinosis was scanned using DECT at standard clinical parameters. Specimens were then examined on light microscopy which revealed CPP deposition in 4 specimens (medial femoral condyle, lateral tibial plateau and both menisci) without BCP deposition. Regions of interest were placed on post-processed CT images using Rho/Z maps (Syngo.via, Siemens Healthineers, VB10B) in different areas of CPP deposition, trabecular bone BCP (T-BCP) and subchondral bone plate BCP (C-BCP).ResultsDual Energy Index (DEI) of CPP was 0.12 (SD = 0.02) for reader 1 and 0.09 (SD = 0.03) for reader 2, The effective atomic number (Zeff) of CPP was 10.83 (SD = 0.44) for reader 1 and 10.11 (SD = 0.66) for reader 2. Nearly all DECT parameters of CPP were higher than those of T-BCP, lower than those of C-BCP, and largely overlapping with Aggregate-BCP (aggregate of T-BCP and C-BCP).ConclusionDifferentiation of different types of calcium crystals using DECT is not feasible in a clinical setting.