Skip to main content
Top

08-05-2024 | Multiple Myeloma | Original Article

Assessment of inter- and intraobserver agreement for META score in distinguishing osteoporotic from multiple myeloma vertebral fractures

Authors: Eduardo Henrique Chiovato Abdala, João Pedro Almeida e Oliveira, Mariana Demétrio de Sousa Pontes, Ângelo Augusto Bongiolo Ganeo, Marcelo Henrique Nogueira-Barbosa, Carlos Fernando P. S. Herrero

Published in: European Spine Journal

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To conduct an independent assessment of inter- and intraobserver agreement for the META score as a tool for differentiating osteoporotic vertebral fractures and multiple myeloma vertebral fractures.

Methods

This is a retrospective observational study. The magnetic resonance imaging analysis was made by two independent spinal surgeons. We designated a Subjective assessment, in which the surgeon should establish a diagnostic classification for each vertebral fracture based on personal experience: secondary to osteoporosis, categorized as a benign vertebral fracture (BVF), or attributed to multiple myeloma, categorized a malign vertebral fracture (MVF). After a 90-day interval, both surgeons repeated the evaluations. For the next step, the observers should establish a diagnosis between BVF and MVF according to the META score system, and both observers repeated the evaluations after a 90-day interval. The intra and interobserver reliability of the Subjective evaluation was studied using the kappa (κ) test. Then, the META evaluations were paralleled using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

A total of 220 patients who had the potential to participate in the study were initially enrolled, but after applying the exclusion criteria, 44 patients were included. Thirty-three patients had BVF, and 12 patients presented MVF. Interobserver agreement for both Subjective evaluations moments (initial and 90-days interval) found a slight agreement for both moments (0.35 and 0.40 respectively). Kappa test for both META evaluations moments (initial and 90-days interval) found a moderate interobserver agreement for both moments (0.54 and 0.48 respectively). It was observed that the ICC calculated for the Initial evaluation using META score was 0.680 and that in the 90-days interval was 0.726, indicating regular to good agreement. Kappa test for intraobserver agreements for the Subjective evaluation presented moderate agreement for both Surgeons. On the other side, Kappa test for intraobserver agreements for the META evaluation presented substantial agreement for both Surgeons. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient of the META score found presented an almost perfect agreement for both Surgeons.

Conclusion

Intra and interobserver agreement for both surgeons were unsatisfactory. The lack of consistent reproducibility by the same observer discourages and disfavors the routine use of the META score in clinical decision making, when potentially cases of multiple myeloma may be present.
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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(5):1000–1011CrossRefPubMed 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(5):1000–1011CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Pongchaiyakul C, Nguyen ND, Jones G, Center JR, Eisman JA, Nguyen TV (2005) Asymptomatic vertebral deformity as a major risk factor for subsequent fractures and mortality: a long-term prospective study. J Bone Miner Res 20(8):1349–1355CrossRefPubMed Pongchaiyakul C, Nguyen ND, Jones G, Center JR, Eisman JA, Nguyen TV (2005) Asymptomatic vertebral deformity as a major risk factor for subsequent fractures and mortality: a long-term prospective study. J Bone Miner Res 20(8):1349–1355CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Longo UG, Loppini M, Denaro L, Maffulli N, Denaro V (2012) Osteoporotic vertebral fractures: current concepts of conservative care. Br Med Bull 102:171–189CrossRefPubMed Longo UG, Loppini M, Denaro L, Maffulli N, Denaro V (2012) Osteoporotic vertebral fractures: current concepts of conservative care. Br Med Bull 102:171–189CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Kim SR, Ha YC, Park YG, Lee SR, Koo KH (2011) Orthopedic surgeon’s awareness can improve osteoporosis treatment following hip fracture: a prospective cohort study. J Korean Med Sci 26(11):1501–1507CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kim SR, Ha YC, Park YG, Lee SR, Koo KH (2011) Orthopedic surgeon’s awareness can improve osteoporosis treatment following hip fracture: a prospective cohort study. J Korean Med Sci 26(11):1501–1507CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Melton LJ 3rd, Chrischilles EA, Cooper C, Lane AW, Riggs BL (1992) Perspective How many women have osteoporosis? J Bone Miner Res 7(9):1005–1010CrossRefPubMed Melton LJ 3rd, Chrischilles EA, Cooper C, Lane AW, Riggs BL (1992) Perspective How many women have osteoporosis? J Bone Miner Res 7(9):1005–1010CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Johnell O, Kanis JA (2006) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 17(12):1726–1733CrossRefPubMed Johnell O, Kanis JA (2006) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 17(12):1726–1733CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C et al (2001) Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA 285(3):320–323CrossRefPubMed Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C et al (2001) Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA 285(3):320–323CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Cowan AJ, Allen C, Barac A et al (2018) Global burden of multiple myeloma: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. JAMA Oncol 4(9):1221–1227CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cowan AJ, Allen C, Barac A et al (2018) Global burden of multiple myeloma: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. JAMA Oncol 4(9):1221–1227CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Lecouvet FE, Vande Berg BC, Maldague BE et al (1997) Vertebral compression fractures in multiple myeloma Part I distribution and appearance at MR imaging. Radiology 204(1):195–199CrossRefPubMed Lecouvet FE, Vande Berg BC, Maldague BE et al (1997) Vertebral compression fractures in multiple myeloma Part I distribution and appearance at MR imaging. Radiology 204(1):195–199CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Spratt DE, Beeler WH, de Moraes FY et al (2017) An integrated multidisciplinary algorithm for the management of spinal metastases: an International spine oncology consortium report. Lancet Oncol 18(12):e720–e730CrossRefPubMed Spratt DE, Beeler WH, de Moraes FY et al (2017) An integrated multidisciplinary algorithm for the management of spinal metastases: an International spine oncology consortium report. Lancet Oncol 18(12):e720–e730CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Baur A, Huber A, Ertl-Wagner B, Durr R, Zysk S, Arbogast S, Deimling M, Reiser M (2001) Diagnostic value of increased diffusion weighting of a steady-state free precession sequence for differentiating acute benign osteoporotic fractures from pathologic vertebral compression fractures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 22:366–372PubMedPubMedCentral Baur A, Huber A, Ertl-Wagner B, Durr R, Zysk S, Arbogast S, Deimling M, Reiser M (2001) Diagnostic value of increased diffusion weighting of a steady-state free precession sequence for differentiating acute benign osteoporotic fractures from pathologic vertebral compression fractures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 22:366–372PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference 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 285:320–323CrossRefPubMed 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 285:320–323CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Nevitt MC, Ettinger B, Black DM, Stone K, Jamal SA, Ensrud K, Segal M, Genant HK, Cummings SR (1998) The association of radiographically detected vertebral fractures with back pain and function: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 128:793–800CrossRefPubMed Nevitt MC, Ettinger B, Black DM, Stone K, Jamal SA, Ensrud K, Segal M, Genant HK, Cummings SR (1998) The association of radiographically detected vertebral fractures with back pain and function: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 128:793–800CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Dos Santos IMG, Herrero CFPDS, Pratali RDR, Agnollitto PM, Waib FF, Nogueira-Barbosa MH (2023) Agreement on mri diagnosis in compressive malignant vertebral fractures. Acta Ortop Bras 31:e258926PubMedPubMedCentral Dos Santos IMG, Herrero CFPDS, Pratali RDR, Agnollitto PM, Waib FF, Nogueira-Barbosa MH (2023) Agreement on mri diagnosis in compressive malignant vertebral fractures. Acta Ortop Bras 31:e258926PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A et al (2014) International myeloma working group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 15:e538–e548CrossRefPubMed Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A et al (2014) International myeloma working group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 15:e538–e548CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Assessment of inter- and intraobserver agreement for META score in distinguishing osteoporotic from multiple myeloma vertebral fractures
Authors
Eduardo Henrique Chiovato Abdala
João Pedro Almeida e Oliveira
Mariana Demétrio de Sousa Pontes
Ângelo Augusto Bongiolo Ganeo
Marcelo Henrique Nogueira-Barbosa
Carlos Fernando P. S. Herrero
Publication date
08-05-2024
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08287-6