Top

Osteoporosis International

Published in:

01-03-2012 | Original Article

Identification of prevalent vertebral fractures using CT lateral scout views: a comparison of semi-automated quantitative vertebral morphometry and radiologist semi-quantitative grading

Authors: Y. M. Kim, S. Demissie, H. K. Genant, X. Cheng, W. Yu, E. J. Samelson, D. P. Kiel, M. L. Bouxsein

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 3/2012

Abstract

Summary

We compared vertebral fracture assessment by semi-automated quantitative vertebral morphometry measurements with the conventional semi-quantitative (SQ) grading using lateral CT scout views. The semi-automated morphometry method showed good to excellent agreement with the visual SQ grading by radiologists for identification of vertebral fractures.

Introduction

Semi-automated quantitative vertebral morphometry (QM) measurements may enhance management of osteoporosis patients by providing an efficient means to identify vertebral fractures (VFx). We compared identification of prevalent VFx by semi-automated QM to SQ grading.

Methods

A non-radiologist performed semi-automated QM from CT lateral scout views in 200 subjects (102 men, 98 women, 65.8 ± 8.9 years) selected from the Framingham Heart Study Multidetector CT Study. VFx were classified in the QM approach based on using Genant's criteria for deformities, and compared with conventional SQ grading performed by experienced radiologists as the gold standard. The kappa (k) statistics, percent agreement (% Agree), sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were computed.

Results

Among 200 subjects, 57 had mild and 41 had moderate or severe VFx by visual SQ grading. Per-person analyses showed excellent agreement between the two methods, with k = 0.780. The % Agree ranged from 86.7% to 91.2%, the SE was 81.3%–96%, and the SP was 86.5%–92%. Among 2,588 vertebrae analyzed, 107 had mild and 49 had moderate or severe VFx by visual SQ grading. Per-vertebra analyses revealed good agreement, with k = 0.580. Agreement between the methods tended to be highest in L1-L4 region. Agreement and validity measures were higher when only moderate and severe fractures were included.

Conclusion

The semi-automated quantitative vertebral morphometry measurements from CT lateral scout views provided good to excellent agreement with the standard SQ grading for assessment of prevalent vertebral fractures.

Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, Johansson H, Oden A, Delmas P, Eisman J, Fujiwara S, Garnero P, Kroger H, McCloskey EV, Mellstrom D, Melton LJ, Pols H, Reeve J, Silman A, Tenenhouse A (2004) A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 35:375–382PubMedCrossRef

Melton LJ 3rd, Kan SH, Frye MA, Wahner HW, O'Fallon WM, Riggs BL (1989) Epidemiology of vertebral fractures in women. Am J Epidemiol 129:1000–1011PubMed

Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, Abbott TA 3rd, Berger M (2000) Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 15:721–739PubMedCrossRef

Melton LJ 3rd, Lane AW, Cooper C, Eastell R, O'Fallon WM, Riggs BL (1993) Prevalence and incidence of vertebral deformities. Osteoporos Int 3:113–119PubMedCrossRef

van Helden S, Cals J, Kessels F, Brink P, Dinant GJ, Geusens P (2006) Risk of new clinical fractures within 2 years following a fracture. Osteoporos Int 17:348–354PubMedCrossRef

Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C, Hanley DA, Barton I, Broy SB, Licata A, Benhamou L, Geusens P, Flowers K, Stracke H, Seeman E (2001) Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. Jama 285:320–323PubMedCrossRef

Gehlbach SH, Bigelow C, Heimisdottir M, May S, Walker M, Kirkwood JR (2000) Recognition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting. Osteoporos Int 11:577–582PubMedCrossRef

Majumdar SR, Kim N, Colman I, Chahal AM, Raymond G, Jen H, Siminoski KG, Hanley DA, Rowe BH (2005) Incidental vertebral fractures discovered with chest radiography in the emergency department: prevalence, recognition, and osteoporosis management in a cohort of elderly patients. Arch Intern Med 165:905–909PubMedCrossRef

Williams AL, Al-Busaidi A, Sparrow PJ, Adams JE, Whitehouse RW (2009) Under-reporting of osteoporotic vertebral fractures on computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 69:179–183PubMedCrossRef

10.

Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8:1137–1148PubMedCrossRef

11.

Jiang G, Eastell R, Barrington NA, Ferrar L (2004) Comparison of methods for the visual identification of prevalent vertebral fracture in osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 15:887–896PubMedCrossRef

12.

Hurxthal LM (1968) Measurement of anterior vertebral compressions and biconcave vertebrae. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 103:635–644PubMed

13.

Schousboe JT, Vokes T, Broy SB, Ferrar L, McKiernan F, Roux C, Binkley N (2008) Vertebral fracture assessment: the 2007 ISCD official positions. J Clin Densitom 11:92–108PubMedCrossRef

14.

Ferrar L, Jiang G, Schousboe JT, DeBold CR, Eastell R (2008) Algorithm-based qualitative and semiquantitative identification of prevalent vertebral fracture: agreement between different readers, imaging modalities, and diagnostic approaches. J Bone Miner Res 23:417–424PubMedCrossRef

15.

Prevrhal S, Krege JH, Chen P, Genant H, Black DM (2009) Teriparatide vertebral fracture risk reduction determined by quantitative and qualitative radiographic assessment. Curr Med Res Opin 25:921–928PubMedCrossRef

16.

Grados F, Fechtenbaum J, Flipon E, Kolta S, Roux C, Fardellone P (2009) Radiographic methods for evaluating osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Joint Bone Spine 76:241–247PubMedCrossRef

17.

Black DM, Cummings SR, Stone K, Hudes E, Palermo L, Steiger P (1991) A new approach to defining normal vertebral dimensions. J Bone Min Res 6:883–892CrossRef

18.

Genant HK, Jergas M, Palermo L, Nevitt M, Valentin RS, Black D, Cummings SR (1996) Comparison of semiquantitative visual and quantitative morphometric assessment of prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in osteoporosis The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. J Bone Miner Res 11:984–996PubMedCrossRef

19.

Brett A, Miller CG, Hayes CW, Krasnow J, Ozanian T, Abrams K, Block JE, van Kuijk C (2009) Development of a clinical workflow tool to enhance the detection of vertebral fractures: accuracy and precision evaluation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2437–2443CrossRef

20.

Kim YM, Demissie S, Eisenberg R, Samelson EJ, Kiel DP, Bouxsein ML (2011) Intra-and inter-reader reliability of semi-automated quantitative morphometry measurements and vertebral fracture assessment using lateral scout views from computed tomography. Osteoporos Int. doi:10.1007/s00198-011-1530-4

21.

Rosito GA, Massaro JM, Hoffmann U, Ruberg FL, Mahabadi AA, Vasan RS, O'Donnell CJ, Fox CS (2008) Pericardial fat, visceral abdominal fat, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and vascular calcification in a community-based sample: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 117:605–613PubMedCrossRef

22.

Moselewski F, O'Donnell CJ, Achenbach S, Ferencik M, Massaro J, Nguyen A, Cury RC, Abbara S, Jang IK, Brady TJ, Hoffmann U (2005) Calcium concentration of individual coronary calcified plaques as measured by multidetector row computed tomography. Circulation 111:3236–3241PubMedCrossRef

23.

Pou KM, Massaro JM, Hoffmann U, Lieb K, Vasan RS, O'Donnell CJ, Fox CS (2009) Patterns of abdominal fat distribution: the Framingham Heart Study. Diabetes Care 32:481–485PubMedCrossRef

24.

Lang T, LeBlanc A, Evans H, Lu Y, Genant H, Yu A (2004) Cortical and trabecular bone mineral loss from the spine and hip in long-duration spaceflight. J Bone Miner Res 19:1006–1012PubMedCrossRef

25.

Black DM, Palermo L, Nevitt MC, Genant HK, Epstein R, San Valentin R, Cummings SR (1995) Comparison of methods for defining prevalent vertebral deformities: the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. J Bone Miner Res 10:890–902PubMedCrossRef

26.

Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRef

27.

Fleiss J (1981) The measurement of interrater agreement. Statistical Method for Rates and Proportions. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York, pp 211–236

28.

Takada M, Wu CY, Lang TF, Genant HK (1998) Vertebral fracture assessment using the lateral scoutview of computed tomography in comparison with radiographs. Osteoporos Int 8:197–203PubMedCrossRef

29.

Samelson EJ, Christiansen BA, Demissie S, Broe KE, Zhou Y, Meng CA, Yu W, Cheng X, O'Donnell CJ, Hoffmann U, Genant HK, Kiel DP, Bouxsein ML (2011) Reliability of vertebral fracture assessment using multidetector CT lateral scout views: the Framingham Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporos Int 22:1123–1131PubMedCrossRef

30.

Kim SH, Choi HS, Rhee Y, Kim KJ, Lim SK (2011) Prevalent vertebral fractures predict subsequent radiographic vertebral fractures in postmenopausal Korean women receiving antiresorptive agent. Osteoporos Int 22:781–787PubMedCrossRef

31.

Ferrar L, Jiang G, Barrington NA, Eastell R (2000) Identification of vertebral deformities in women: comparison of radiological assessment and quantitative morphometry using morphometric radiography and morphometric X-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res 15:575–585PubMedCrossRef

32.

Grados F, Roux C, de Vernejoul MC, Utard G, Sebert JL, Fardellone P (2001) Comparison of four morphometric definitions and a semiquantitative consensus reading for assessing prevalent vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 12:716–722PubMedCrossRef

33.

Hospers IC, van der Laan JG, Zeebregts CJ, Nieboer P, Wolffenbuttel BH, Dierckx RA, Kreeftenberg HG, Jager PL, Slart RH (2009) Vertebral fracture assessment in supine position: comparison by using conventional semiquantitative radiography and visual radiography. Radiology 251:822–828PubMedCrossRef

34.

Rea JA, Chen MB, Li J, Blake GM, Steiger P, Genant HK, Fogelman I (2000) Morphometric X-ray absorptiometry and morphometric radiography of the spine: a comparison of prevalent vertebral deformity identification. J Bone Miner Res 15:564–574PubMedCrossRef

35.

Fuerst T, Wu C, Genant HK, von Ingersleben G, Chen Y, Johnston C, Econs MJ, Binkley N, Vokes TJ, Crans G, Mitlak BH (2009) Evaluation of vertebral fracture assessment by dual X-ray absorptiometry in a multicenter setting. Osteoporos Int 20:1199–1205PubMedCrossRef

36.

Chapurlat RD, Duboeuf F, Marion-Audibert HO, Kalpakcioglu B, Mitlak BH, Delmas PD (2006) Effectiveness of instant vertebral assessment to detect prevalent vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int 17:1189–1195PubMedCrossRef

37.

Wu CY, Li J, Jergas M, Genant HK (1995) Comparison of semiquantitative and quantitative techniques for the assessment of prevalent and incident vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 5:354–370PubMedCrossRef

38.

McCloskey EV, Vasireddy S, Threlkeld J, Eastaugh J, Parry A, Bonnet N, Beneton M, Kanis JA, Charlesworth D (2008) Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) with a densitometer predicts future fractures in elderly women unselected for osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 23:1561–1568PubMedCrossRef

39.

Roberts MG, Cootes TF, Adams JE (2005) Vertebral shape: automatic measurement with dynamically sequenced active appearance models. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 8:733–740PubMed

40.

de Bruijne M, Lund MT, Tanko LB, Pettersen PP, Nielsen M (2006) Quantitative vertebral morphometry using neighbor-conditional shape models. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 9:1–8PubMed

41.

Roberts M, Cootes TF, Adams JE (2006) Vertebral morphometry: semiautomatic determination of detailed shape from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry images using active appearance models. Invest Radiol 41:849–859PubMedCrossRef

42.

Roberts M, Cootes T, Pacheco E, Adams J (2007) Quantitative vertebral fracture detection on DXA images using shape and appearance models. Acad Radiol 14:1166–1178PubMedCrossRef

43.

de Bruijne M, Lund MT, Tanko LB, Pettersen PC, Nielsen M (2007) Quantitative vertebral morphometry using neighbor-conditional shape models. Med Image Anal 11:503–512PubMedCrossRef

44.

Roberts MG, Pacheco EM, Mohankumar R, Cootes TF, Adams JE (2010) Detection of vertebral fractures in DXA VFA images using statistical models of appearance and a semiautomatic segmentation. Osteoporos Int 21:2037–2046PubMedCrossRef

Title: Identification of prevalent vertebral fractures using CT lateral scout views: a comparison of semi-automated quantitative vertebral morphometry and radiologist semi-quantitative grading
Authors: Y. M. Kim
S. Demissie
H. K. Genant
X. Cheng
W. Yu
E. J. Samelson
D. P. Kiel
M. L. Bouxsein
Publication date: 01-03-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Osteoporosis International / Issue 3/2012
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1774-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Identification of prevalent vertebral fractures using CT lateral scout views: a comparison of semi-automated quantitative vertebral morphometry and radiologist semi-quantitative grading

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2012

Strontium uptake and effects in bone: reply to Fogelman and Blake

Maintenance of antifracture efficacy over 10 years with strontium ranelate in postmenopausal osteoporosis

Treatment for older men with fractures

The potential impact of the National Osteoporosis Foundation guidance on treatment eligibility in the USA: an update in NHANES 2005–2008

Premature T cell senescence in Ovx mice is inhibited by repletion of estrogen and medicarpin: a possible mechanism for alleviating bone loss

Bisphosphonate prescribing, persistence and cumulative exposure in Ontario, Canada