Proposed diagnostic volumetric bone mineral density thresholds for osteoporosis and osteopenia at the cervicothoracic spine in correlation to the lumbar spine.
Bone density
Machine learning
Multidetector computed tomography
Osteoporosis
Screening
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
24
11
2021
accepted:
07
03
2022
revised:
25
02
2022
pubmed:
7
4
2022
medline:
19
8
2022
entrez:
6
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine the correlation between cervicothoracic and lumbar volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) in an average cohort of adults and to identify specific diagnostic thresholds for the cervicothoracic spine on the individual subject level. In this HIPPA-compliant study, we retrospectively included 260 patients (59.7 ± 18.3 years, 105 women), who received a contrast-enhanced or non-contrast-enhanced CT scan. vBMD was extracted using an automated pipeline ( https://anduin.bonescreen.de ). The association of vBMD between each vertebra spanning C2-T12 and the averaged values at the lumbar spine (L1-L3) was analyzed before and after semiquantitative assessment of fracture status and degeneration, and respective vertebra-specific cut-off values for osteoporosis were calculated using linear regression. In both women and men, trabecular vBMD decreased with age in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions. vBMD values of cervicothoracic vertebrae showed strong correlations with lumbar vertebrae (L1-L3), with a median Pearson value of r = 0.87 (range: r Our data show a high correlation between clinically used mean L1-L3 values and vBMD values elsewhere in the spine, independent of age. The proposed cut-off values for the cervicothoracic spine therefore may allow the determination of low bone mass even in clinical cases where only parts of the spine are imaged. vBMD of all cervicothoracic vertebrae showed strong correlation with lumbar vertebrae (L1-L3), with a median Pearson's correlation coefficient of r = 0.87 (range: r
Identifiants
pubmed: 35384459
doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-08721-7
pii: 10.1007/s00330-022-08721-7
pmc: PMC9381469
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6207-6214Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
ID : 432290010
Organisme : European Research Council
ID : 963904
Pays : International
Organisme : European Research Council
ID : 963904
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Pickhardt PJ, Graffy PM, Zea R et al (2020) Automated CT biomarkers for opportunistic prediction of future cardiovascular events and mortality in an asymptomatic screening population: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Digit Heal 2:e192–e200
doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30025-X
Engelke K (2017) Quantitative computed tomography—current status and new developments. J Clin Densitom 20:309–321
doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2017.06.017
Baum T, Müller D, Dobritz M et al (2011) BMD measurements of the spine derived from sagittal reformations of contrast-enhanced MDCT without dedicated software. Eur J Radiol 80:140–145
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.08.034
Bauer JS, Henning TD, Müeller D et al (2007) Volumetric quantitative CT of the spine and hip derived from contrast-enhanced MDCT: conversion factors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1294–1301
doi: 10.2214/AJR.06.1006
Kaesmacher J, Liebl H, Baum T, Kirschke JS (2017) Bone mineral density estimations from routine multidetector computed tomography: a comparative study of contrast and calibration effects. J Comput Assist Tomogr 41:217–223
doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000518
Boutin RD, Lenchik L (2020) Value-added opportunistic CT: insights into osteoporosis and sarcopenia. Am J Roentgenol 215:582–594
doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.22874
Zhang J, Delzell E, Zhao H et al (2012) Central DXA utilization shifts from office-based to hospital-based settings among medicare beneficiaries in the wake of reimbursement changes. J Bone Miner Res 27:858–864
doi: 10.1002/jbmr.1534
(2011) OECD Statistics. Available via https://stats.oecd.org/ . Accessed 10 Sept 2021
Miller PD (2016) Underdiagnoses and undertreatment of osteoporosis: the battle to be won. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 101:852–859
doi: 10.1210/jc.2015-3156
Overman RA, Farley JF, Curtis JR et al (2015) DXA utilization between 2006 and 2012 in commercially insured younger postmenopausal women. J Clin Densitom 18:145–149
doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2015.01.005
Hayes BL, Curtis JR, Laster A et al (2010) Osteoporosis care in the United States after declines in reimbursements for DXA. J Clin Densitom 13:352–360
doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2010.08.001
Wright NC, Looker AC, Saag KG et al (2014) The recent prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass in the United States based on bone mineral density at the femoral neck or lumbar spine. J Bone Miner Res 29:2520–2526
doi: 10.1002/jbmr.2269
Svendsen OL, Hassager C, Skødt V, Christiansen C (1995) Impact of soft tissue on in vivo accuracy of bone mineral measurements in the spine, hip, and forearm: a human cadaver study. J Bone Miner Res 10:868–873
doi: 10.1002/jbmr.5650100607
Adams JE (2013) Advances in bone imaging for osteoporosis. Nat Rev Endocrinol 9:28–42
doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2012.217
Löffler MT, Jacob A, Valentinitsch A et al (2019) Improved prediction of incident vertebral fractures using opportunistic QCT compared to DXA. Eur Radiol 29:4980–4989
Löffler MT, Jacob A, Scharr A et al (2021) Automatic opportunistic osteoporosis screening in routine CT: improved prediction of patients with prevalent vertebral fractures compared to DXA. Eur Radiol 31:6069–6077
Salzmann SN, Shirahata T, Yang J et al (2019) Regional bone mineral density differences measured by quantitative computed tomography: does the standard clinically used L1-L2 average correlate with the entire lumbosacral spine? Spine J 19:695–702
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.10.007
The American College of Radiology (2018) Acr–Spr–Ssr practice parameter for the performance of musculoskeletal quantitative computed tomography (Qct) 1076 6
Eckstein F, Lochmüller EM, Lill CA et al (2002) Bone strength at clinically relevant sites displays substantial heterogeneity and is best predicted from site-specific bone densitometry. J Bone Miner Res 17:162–171
doi: 10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.1.162
Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Stemper BD et al (2006) Trabecular bone density of male human cervical and lumbar vertebrae. Bone 39:336–344
doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2006.01.160
Weishaupt D, Schweitzer ME, DiCuccio MN, Whitley PE (2001) Relationships of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar bone mineral density by quantitative CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 25:146–150
doi: 10.1097/00004728-200101000-00027
Zhang Y, Zhou Z, Wu C et al (2016) Population-stratified analysis of bone mineral density distribution in cervical and lumbar vertebrae of Chinese from quantitative computed tomography. Korean J Radiol 17:581–589
doi: 10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.581
Burns JE (2017) Fractures and bone density: automated detection and classification on CT images 1. 000 1–10
Rühling S, Navarro F, Sekuboyina A et al (2021) Automated detection of the contrast phase in MDCT by an artificial neural network improves the accuracy of opportunistic bone mineral density measurements. Eur Radiol 32:1465–1474
Sekuboyina A, Rempfler M, Valentinitsch A, Menze BH, Kirschke JS (2020) Labeling vertebrae with two-dimensional reformations of multidetector CT images: an adversarial approach for incorporating prior knowledge of spine anatomy. Radiol Artif Intell 2:e190074
doi: 10.1148/ryai.2020190074
Sekuboyina A, Rempfler M, Kukačka J et al (2018) Btrfly Net: vertebrae labelling with energy-based adversarial learning of local spine prior. Lect notes Comput Sci (including Subser Lect notes Artif Intell Lect notes bioinformatics) 11073 LNCS 649–657
Ronneberger O, Fischer P, Brox T (2015) U-net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. Lect Notes Comput Sci (Including Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinformatics) 9351:234–241
Sekuboyina A, Husseini ME, Bayat A et al (2021) VERSE: a vertebrae labelling and segmentation benchmark for multi-detector CT images Med Image Anal 73
Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8:1137–1148
doi: 10.1002/jbmr.5650080915
Guglielmi G, Floriani I, Torri V et al (2005) Effect of spinal degenerative changes on volumetric bone mineral density of the central skeleton as measured by quantitative computed tomography. Acta Radiol 46:269–275
doi: 10.1080/02841850510012661
Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Stemper BD et al (2006) Bone mineral density of human female cervical and lumbar spines from quantitative computed tomography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31 73–76
Fuggle NR, Curtis EM, Ward KA et al (2019) Fracture prediction, imaging and screening in osteoporosis. Nat Rev Endocrinol 15:535–547
doi: 10.1038/s41574-019-0220-8
Baum T, Müller D, Dobritz M et al (2012) Converted lumbar BMD values derived from sagittal reformations of contrast-enhanced MDCT predict incidental osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Calcif Tissue Int 90:481–487
doi: 10.1007/s00223-012-9596-3
Engelke K, Lang T, Khosla S et al (2015) Clinical use of quantitative computed tomography-based advanced techniques in the management of osteoporosis in adults: the 2015 ISCD official positions-part III. J Clin Densitom 18:393–407
doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2015.06.010
Löffler MT, Sekuboyina A, Jacob A et al (2020) A vertebral segmentation dataset with fracture grading. Radiol Artif Intell 2:e190138
doi: 10.1148/ryai.2020190138
Anderst WJ, West T, Donaldson WF, Lee JY (2017) Cervical spine bone density in young healthy adults as a function of sex, vertebral level and anatomic location. Eur Spine J 26:2281–2289
doi: 10.1007/s00586-017-5119-2
Kaesmacher J, Schweizer C, Valentinitsch A et al (2017) Osteoporosis is the most important risk factor for odontoid fractures in the elderly. J Bone Miner Res 32:1582–1588
doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3120
Löffler MT, Sollmann N, Burian E et al (2021) Opportunistic osteoporosis screening reveals low bone density in patients with screw loosening after lumbar semi-rigid instrumentation: a case-control study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 11:1–11
doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.552719