Advertisement

Association of Phantomless Dual-Energy CT-based Volumetric Bone Mineral Density with the Prevalence of Acute Insufficiency Fractures of the Spine

Published:December 26, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2022.11.020

      Rationale and Objectives

      To evaluate the bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine derived from dual-energy CT (DECT)-based volumetric material decomposition and its association with acute insufficiency fractures of the thoracolumbar spine.

      Materials and Methods

      L1 of 160 patients (77 men, 83 women; mean age 64.3 years, range, 22-94 years) who underwent third-generation dual-source DECT between January 2016 and December 2021 due to suspected insufficiency fractures was retrospectively analyzed. All depicted vertebrae were examined for signs of recent fractures. A dedicated DECT postprocessing software using material decomposition was applied for phantomless BMD assessment. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis identified optimal BMD thresholds. Associations of BMD, sex, and age with the occurrence of insufficiency fractures were examined with logistic regression models.

      Results

      A DECT-derived BMD threshold of 120.40 mg/cm³ yielded 90.1% specificity and 59.32% sensitivity to differentiate patients with at least one insufficiency fracture from patients without fracture. No patient without fracture had a DECT-derived BMD below 85 mg/cm3. Lower DECT-derived bone mineral density was associated with an increased risk of insufficiency fractures (Odds ratio of 0.93, 95% CI, 0.91-0.96, p < 0.001). Overall ROC-derived AUC was 0.82 (p < 0.0001) for the differentiation of patients that sustained an insufficiency fracture from the control group.

      Conclusion

      Dual-Energy CT-based BMD assessment can accurately differentiate patients with acute insufficiency fractures of the thoracolumbar spine from patients without fracture. This algorithm can be used for phantomless risk stratification of patients undergoing routine CT to sustain insufficiency fractures of the thoracolumbar spine The identified cut-off value of 120.4 mg/cm³ is in line with current American College of Radiology (ACR) recommendations to differentiate healthy individuals from those with reduced bone mineral density.

      Key Words

      Abbreviations:

      ACR (American College of Radiology), AUC (Area under the curve), BMD (Bone mineral density), DECT (Dual-energy computed tomography), DXA (Dual x-ray absorptiometry), HU (Hounsfield unit), PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System), QCT (Quantitative computed tomography), ROC (Receiver-operating characteristic), ROI (Region of interest), VOI (Volume of interest)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Sarafrazi N
        Osteoporosis or Low Bone Mass in Older Adults: United States, 2017-2018.
        2021 (Atlanta, Georgia)
        • Kanis JA
        • Svedbom A
        • Harvey N
        • et al.
        The Osteoporosis treatment gap.
        J Bone Mineral Res. 2021; 29: 1926-1928https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2301
        • Jain RK
        • Vokes T
        Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry.
        J Clini Densitometry. 2017; 20: 291-303https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2017.06.014
        • Schuit SCE
        • van der Klift M
        • Weel AEAM
        • et al.
        Fracture incidence and association with bone mineral density in elderly men and women: the Rotterdam Study.
        Bone. 2004; 34: 195-202https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2003.10.001
        • Li N
        • Li X
        • Xu L
        • et al.
        Comparison of QCT and DXA: Osteoporosis Detection Rates in Postmenopausal Women.
        Int J Endocrinol. 2013; 2013: 1-5https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/895474
        • Löffler MT
        • Jacob A
        • Valentinitsch A
        • et al.
        Improved prediction of incident vertebral fractures using opportunistic QCT compared to DXA.
        Eur Radiol. 2019; 29: 4980-4989https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06018-w
        • OECD
        Computed tomography (CT) exams (indicator).
        2021 (Accessed 22 Dec 2021)
        • Jang S
        • Graffy PM
        • Ziemlewicz TJ
        • et al.
        Opportunistic Osteoporosis Screening at Routine Abdominal and Thoracic CT: Normative L1 Trabecular Attenuation Values in More than 20 000 Adults.
        Radiology. 2019; 291: 360-367https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019181648
        • Gerety E-L
        • Hopper MA
        • Bearcroft PWP
        The reliability of measuring the density of the L1 vertebral body on CT imaging as a predictor of bone mineral density.
        Clin Radiol. 2017; 72: 177.e9-177.e15https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2016.09.022
        • Mazess RB
        Errors in measuring trabecular bone by computed tomography due to marrow and bone composition.
        Calcif Tissue Int. 1983; 35: 148-152https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02405022
        • Nowak T
        • Eberhard M
        • Schmidt B
        • et al.
        Bone Mineral Density Quantification from Localizer Radiographs: accuracy and precision of energy-integrating detector CT and photon-counting Detector CT.
        Radiology. 2021; 298: 147-152https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020202767
        • Wesarg S
        • Kirschner M
        • Becker M
        • et al.
        Dual-energy CT-based Assessment of the Trabecular Bone in Vertebrae.
        Methods Inf Med. 2012; 51: 398-405https://doi.org/10.3414/ME11-02-0034
        • Booz C
        • Noeske J
        • Albrecht MH
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative dual-energy CT-based bone mineral density assessment in comparison to Hounsfield unit measurements using dual x-ray absorptiometry as standard of reference.
        Eur J Radiol. 2020; 132109321https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109321
        • Koch V
        • Müller FC
        • Gosvig K
        • et al.
        Incremental diagnostic value of color-coded virtual non-calcium dual-energy CT for the assessment of traumatic bone marrow edema of the scaphoid.
        Eur Radiol. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07541-x
        • Gruenewald LD
        • Koch V
        • Martin SS
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative dual-energy CT-based volumetric bone mineral density assessment for the prediction of osteoporosis-associated fractures.
        Eur Radiol. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08323-9
        • Koch V
        • Albrecht MH
        • Gruenewald LD
        • et al.
        Impact of Intravenously Injected Contrast Agent on Bone Mineral Density Measurement in Dual-Source Dual-Energy CT.
        Acad Radiol. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2021.06.010
        • Koch V
        • Hokamp NG
        • Albrecht MH
        • et al.
        Accuracy and precision of volumetric bone mineral density assessment using dual-source dual-energy versus quantitative CT: a phantom study.
        Eur Radiol Exp. 2021; 5: 43https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-021-00241-1
        • Zou D
        • Ye K
        • Tian Y
        • et al.
        Characteristics of vertebral CT Hounsfield units in elderly patients with acute vertebral fragility fractures.
        European Spine Journal. 2020; 29: 1092-1097https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06363-1
      1. Lee SJ, Binkley & N, Lubner MG, et al Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using the sagittal reconstruction from routine abdominal CT for combined assessment of vertebral fractures and density. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3318-4

        • Nickoloff EL
        • Feldman F
        • Atherton J V
        Bone mineral assessment: new dual-energy CT approach.
        Radiology. 1988; 168: 223-228https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.168.1.3380964
        • The American College of Radiology
        ACR–SPR–SSR practice parameter for the performance ofmusculoskeletal quantitative com- puted tomography (QCT). 1076. 2018: 6
        • Fuggle NR
        • Curtis EM
        • Ward KA
        • et al.
        Fracture prediction, imaging and screening in osteoporosis.
        Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2019; 15: 535-547
        • Leonhardt Y
        • May P
        • Gordijenko O
        • et al.
        Opportunistic QCT bone mineral density measurements predicting Osteoporotic Fractures: A use case in a.
        Prospect Clini Cohort. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020; 11: 1-7https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2020.586352
        • Allaire BT
        • Lu D
        • Johannesdottir F
        • et al.
        Prediction of incident vertebral fracture using CT-based finite element analysis.
        Osteoporosis Intl. 2019; 30: 323-331https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4716-1
        • Roski F
        • Hammel J
        • Mei K
        • et al.
        Bone mineral density measurements derived from dual-layer spectral CT enable opportunistic screening for osteoporosis.
        Eur Radiol. 2019; 29: 6355-6363https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06263-z
        • Lee SJ
        • Graffy PM
        • Zea RD
        • et al.
        Future Osteoporotic Fracture risk related to Lumbar Vertebral Trabecular Attenuation measured at routine body CT.
        J Bone Mineral Res. 2018; 33: 860-867https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3383
        • Pickhardt PJ
        • Graffy PM
        • Zea R
        • et al.
        Automated Abdominal CT Imaging Biomarkers for opportunistic prediction of future major Osteoporotic Fractures in Asymptomatic adults.
        Radiology. 2020; 297: 64-72https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020200466
        • Knowles NK
        • Reeves JM
        • Ferreira LM
        Quantitative Computed Tomography (QCT) derived Bone Mineral Density (BMD) in finite element studies: a review of the literature.
        J Exp Orthop. 2016; 3: 36https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-016-0072-2
        • Giambini H
        • Dragomir-Daescu D
        • Huddleston PM
        • et al.
        The Effect of Quantitative Computed Tomography Acquisition Protocols on Bone Mineral Density Estimation.
        J Biomech Eng. 2015; 137: 1-6https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4031572
        • Bredella MA
        • Daley SM
        • Kalra MK
        • et al.
        Marrow Adipose tissue quantification of the Lumbar Spine by using Dual-Energy CT and Single-Voxel 1 H MR Spectroscopy: A feasibility study.
        Radiology. 2015; 277: 230-235https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142876
        • Yu EW
        • Thomas BJ
        • Brown JK
        • et al.
        Simulated increases in body fat and errors in bone mineral density measurements by DXA and QCT.
        J Bone Mineral Res. 2012; 27 (2012): 119-124https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.506