Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 12/2018

01-12-2018 | Magnetic Resonance

Bone susceptibility mapping with MRI is an alternative and reliable biomarker of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

Authors: Yanjun Chen, Yihao Guo, Xintao Zhang, Yingjie Mei, Yanqiu Feng, Xiaodong Zhang

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 12/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the efficacy of quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) in the assessment of osteoporosis for postmenopausal women.

Methods

Between May and September 2017, a total of 70 postmenopausal women who underwent MRI-based QSM and quantitative computed tomography (QCT) were consecutively enrolled in this prospective study. The measurement of QSM and QCT values was performed on the L3 vertebrae body. On the basis of QCT value, all individuals were divided into three groups (normal, osteopenia and osteoporosis).

Results

On the basis of QCT, 18 individuals were normal (25.7%), 26 osteopenic (37.1%) and 26 osteoporotic (37.1%). The QSM value was age-related (p = 0.04) and significantly higher in the osteoporosis group than in either the normal or osteopenia group (for all, p < 0.001). In addition, the QSM value was highly correlated with QCT value (r = − 0.720, p < 0.001). For QSM, the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity for differentiating osteopenia from non-osteopenia were 0.88, 86.5% and 77.8%, respectively, and for differentiating osteoporosis from non-osteoporosis they were 0.86, 80.8% and 77.3%, respectively.

Conclusions

MRI-based QSM could be used for quantifying susceptibility in vertebrae and has the potential to be a new biomarker in the assessment of osteoporosis for postmenopausal women.

Key Points

• Osteoporosis significantly increases risk of fracture for postmenopausal women.
• QSM value was correlated with QCT value (r = − 0.72, p < 0.001).
• QSM is feasible in the assessment of osteoporosis for postmenopausal women.
• QSM offers the quantification of susceptibility within bone.
Literature
1.
Cosman F, de Beur SJ, LeBoff MS et al (2014) Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 25:2359–2381CrossRef
2.
3.
Li N, Li X, Xu L, Sun W, Cheng X, Tian W (2013) Comparison of QCT and DXA: osteoporosis detection rates in postmenopausal women. Int J Endocrinol 2013:895474PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Link TM, Lang TF (2014) Axial QCT: clinical applications and new developments. J Clin Densitom 17:438–448CrossRef
5.
Kazakia GJ, Hyun B, Burghardt AJ et al (2008) In vivo determination of bone structure in postmenopausal women: a comparison of HR-pQCT and high-feld MR imaging. J Bone Miner Res 23:463–474CrossRef
6.
Folkesson J, Goldenstein J, Carballido-Gamio J et al (2011) Longitudinal evaluation of the effects of alendronate on MRI bone microarchitecture in postmenopausal osteopenic women. Bone 48:611–621CrossRef
7.
Wehrli FW, Leonard MB, Saha PK, Gomberg BR (2004) Quantitative high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging reveals structural implications of renal osteodystrophy on trabecular and cortical bone. J Magn Reson Imaging 20:83–89CrossRef
8.
Kuhn JP, Hernando D, Meffert PJ et al (2013) Proton-density fat fraction and simultaneous R2* estimation as an MRI tool for assessment of osteoporosis. Eur Radiol 23:3432–3439CrossRef
9.
Reichenbach JR, Schweser F, Serres B, Deistung A (2015) Quantitative susceptibility mapping: concepts and applications. Clin Neuroradiol 25:225–230CrossRef
10.
Wang Y, Liu T (2015) Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM): decoding MRI data for a tissue magnetic biomarker. Magn Reson Med 73:82–101CrossRef
11.
Deistung A, Schweser F, Wiestler B et al (2013) Quantitative susceptibility mapping differentiates between blood depositions and calcifications in patients with glioblastoma. PLoS One 8:e57924CrossRef
12.
Dimov AV, Liu Z, Spincemaille P, Du J, Wang Y (2015) Quantitative susceptibility mapping of bone using ultra-short TE sequence. In: Proceedings of the 23th Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Toronto, ON, Canada, p 938
13.
Nissi MJ, Toth F, Wang LN, Carlson CS, Ellermann JM (2015) Improved visualization of cartilage canals using quantitative susceptibility mapping. PLoS One 10:e0132167CrossRef
14.
Wang L, Nissi MJ, Toth F et al (2016) Quantitative susceptibility mapping detects abnormalities in cartilage canals in a goat model of preclinical osteochondritis dissecans. Magn Reson Med 77:1276–1283CrossRef
15.
Wei H, Dibb R, Decker K et al (2017) Investigating magnetic susceptibility of human knee joint at 7 teslas. Magn Reson Med 78:1933–1943CrossRef
16.
Dimov AV, Liu Z, Spincemaille P Prince MR, Du J, Wang Y (2018) Bone quantitative susceptibility mapping using a chemical species-specific R2* signal model with ultrashort and conventional echo data. Magn Reson Med 79:121–128CrossRef
17.
18.
Liu T, Wisnieff C, Lou M, Chen W, Spincemaille P, Wang Y (2013) Nonlinear formulation of the magnetic field to source relationship for robust quantitative susceptibility mapping. Magn Reson Med 69:467–476CrossRef
19.
Acosta-Cabronero J, Cardenas-Blanco A, Betts MJ et al (2017) The whole-brain pattern of magnetic susceptibility perturbations in Parkinson's disease. Brain 140:118–131CrossRef
20.
Liu T, Khalidov I, de Rochefort L et al (2011) A novel background field removal method for MRI using projection onto dipole fields (PDF). NMR Biomed 24:1129–1136CrossRef
21.
Bilgic B, Fan AP, Polimeni JR et al (2014) Fast quantitative susceptibility mapping with L1-regularization and automatic parameter selection. Magn Reson Med 72:1444–1459CrossRef
22.
WHO (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO study group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 843:1–129
23.
Pai MV (2017) Osteoporosis prevention and management. J Obstet Gynaecol India 67:237–242CrossRef
24.
Link TM (2012) Osteoporosis imaging: state of the art and advanced imaging. Radiology 263:3–17CrossRef
25.
26.
Li C, Magland JF, Zhao X, Seifert AC, Wehrli FW (2016) Selective in vivo bone imaging with long-T2 suppressed PETRA MRI. Magn Reson Med 77:989–997CrossRef
27.
Biswas R, Bae W, Diaz E et al (2012) Ultrashort echo time (UTE) imaging with bi-component analysis: bound and free water evaluation of bovine cortical bone subject to sequential drying. Bone 50:749–755CrossRef
28.
Zhu J, Zhang L, Wu X et al (2017) Reduction of longitudinal vertebral blood perfusion and its likely causes: a quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging study of a rat osteoporosis model. Radiology 282:369CrossRef
29.
Ide S, Kakeda S, Ueda I et al (2015) Internal structures of the globus pallidus in patients with Parkinson’s disease: evaluation with quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM). Eur Radiol 25:710–718CrossRef
30.
Azuma M, Hirai T, Yamada K et al (2016) Lateral asymmetry and spatial difference of iron deposition in the substantia nigra of patients with Parkinson disease measured with quantitative susceptibility mapping. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:782–788CrossRef
31.
Sun H, Kate M, Gioia LC, Emery DJ, Butcher K, Wilman AH (2016) Quantitative susceptibility mapping using a superposed dipole inversion method: application to intracranial hemorrhage. Magn Reson Med 76:781–791CrossRef
32.
Li X, Vikram DS, Lim IAL, Jones CK, Farrell JA, van Zijl PC (2012) Mapping magnetic susceptibility anisotropies of white matter in vivo in the human brain at 7T. NeuroImage 62:314–330CrossRef
33.
34.
Wharton S, Bowtell R (2012) Fiber orientation-dependent white matter contrast in gradient echo MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:18559–18564CrossRef
35.
Cronin MJ, Wharton S, Al-Radaideh A et al (2016) A comparison of phase imaging and quantitative susceptibility mapping in the imaging of multiple sclerosis lesions at ultrahigh field. MAGMA 29:543–557CrossRef
36.
Bian W, Tranvinh E, Tourdias T et al (2016) In vivo 7T MR quantitative susceptibility mapping reveals opposite susceptibility contrast between cortical and white matter lesions in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:1808–1181CrossRef
37.
Sati P, Oh J, Constable RT et al (2016) The central vein sign and its clinical evaluation for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a consensus statement from the North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis Cooperative. Nat Rev Neurol 12:714–722CrossRef
38.
Xie L, Dibb R, Cofer GP et al (2015) Susceptibility tensor imaging of the kidney and its microstructural underpinnings. Magn Reson Med 73:1270–1281CrossRef
39.
Straub S, Laun FB, Emmerich J et al (2017) Potential of quantitative susceptibility mapping for detection of prostatic calcifications. J Magn Reson Imaging 45:889–898CrossRef
40.
Chen W, Zhu W, Kovanlikaya I et al (2014) Intracranial calcifications and hemorrhages: characterization with quantitative susceptibility mapping. Radiology 270:496–505CrossRef
41.
Wang Y, Spincemaille P, Liu Z et al (2017). Clinical quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM): Biometal imaging and its emerging roles inpatient care. J Magn Reson Imaging 46(4):951–971
Metadata
Title
Bone susceptibility mapping with MRI is an alternative and reliable biomarker of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women
Authors
Yanjun Chen
Yihao Guo
Xintao Zhang
Yingjie Mei
Yanqiu Feng
Xiaodong Zhang
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 12/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5419-x

Other articles of this Issue 12/2018

European Radiology 12/2018 Go to the issue

Head and Neck

Improved detection rates and treatment planning of head and neck cancer using dual-layer spectral CT

Gastrointestinal

Sub-millisievert CT colonography: effect of knowledge-based iterative reconstruction on the detection of colonic polyps

Physics

Task-based quantification of image quality using a model observer in abdominal CT: a multicentre study

Gastrointestinal

Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy CT-based nomograms to predict lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer

Breast

Usefulness of feature analysis of breast-specific gamma imaging for predicting malignancy

Computed Tomography

Comparing dual energy CT and subtraction CT on a phantom: which one provides the best contrast in iodine maps for sub-centimetre details?