Advertisement

Patient physiology influences the MRI-based vertebral bone quality score

      Abstract

      BACKGROUND CONTEXT

      Osteoporosis is a critical issue affecting postmenopausal women and the aging population. A novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based vertebral bone quality (VBQ) score has been proposed as a method to identify poor bone quality and predict fragility fractures. The diagnostic accuracy of this tool is not well understood.

      PURPOSE

      To examine the ability of VBQ to predict osteoporosis and osteopenia, its correlation with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), and the influence of patient-specific factors upon the score.

      STUDY DESIGN

      Retrospective cohort study.

      PATIENT SAMPLE

      Patients over the age of 18 with a DEXA scan and noncontrast, T1-weighted MRI of the lumbar spine completed within a 2-year period.

      OUTCOME MEASURES

      Area-under-curve (AUC) values of the VBQ score predicting osteopenia and osteoporosis when controlling for patient characteristics.

      METHODS

      Patients with noncontrast, T1-weighted MRIs of the lumbar spine and DEXA scans completed within a 2-year time frame were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics and medical risk factors for osteoporosis were identified and compared. VBQ scores were measured by two trained researchers and interrater reliability was calculated. Patients were separated into three groups defined by lowest DEXA T-score: Healthy Bone, Osteopenia, and Osteoporosis. analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis test, chi-square, t tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and multivariate linear regression were performed to examine the relationship between patient characteristics, DEXA t-scores, and VBQ scores. Receiver operating characteristic analysis and AUC values were generated for the prediction of osteopenia and osteoporosis.

      RESULTS

      A total of 156 patients were included for analysis. Sufficient inter-rater reliability was determined for VBQ measures (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.81). Most patients were female (83%), postmenopausal (81%), and had hyperlipidemia (64%). Patients with hyperlipidemia and healthy bone density by DEXA had elevated baseline VBQ scores (p<.001) reflective of values seen in osteopenia and osteoporosis. The AUC of the VBQ score predicting osteopenia and osteoporosis changed to be more concordant with DEXA results after controlling for hyperlipidemia (AUC=0.72, 0.70 vs. AUC=0.88, 0.89; p<.001). Sub-analysis of hyperlipidemia subtypes revealed that elevated high-density lipoprotein is associated with elevated VBQ scores.

      CONCLUSIONS

      Hyperlipidemia increased the MRI-based VBQ score in our healthy bone population. The high signal intensities resembled values seen in osteopenia and osteoporosis, suggesting that physiologic variables which impact bone composition may influence the VBQ score. Specifically, elevated high-density lipoprotein may contribute to this. The microarchitectural changes and the clinical implications of these factors need further exploration.

      Keywords

      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 The Spine Journal
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Cosman F
        • de Beur SJ
        • LeBoff MS
        • Lewiecki E
        • Tanner B
        • Randall S
        • et al.
        Clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.
        Osteoporos Int. 2014; 25https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2794-2
        • Camacho PM
        • Petak SM
        • Binkley N
        • Diab D
        • Eldeiry LS
        • Farooki A
        • et al.
        American association of clinical endocrinologists/American college of endocrinology clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis-2020 update.
        Endocr Pract. 2020; 26https://doi.org/10.4158/GL-2020-0524SUPPL
        • Wright NC
        • Looker AC
        • Saag KG
        • Curtis JR
        • Delzell ES
        • Randall S
        • et al.
        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. 2014; 29https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2269
        • Pappou IP
        • Girardi FP
        • Sandhu HS
        • Parvataneni HK
        • Cammisa Jr, FP
        • Schneider R
        • et al.
        Discordantly high spinal bone mineral density values in patients with adult lumbar scoliosis.
        Spine. 2006; 31https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000222030.32171.5f
        • Halvorson TL
        • Kelley LA
        • Thomas KA
        • Whitecloud 3rd, TS
        • Cook SD.
        Effects of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation.
        Spine. 1994; 19https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199411000-00008
        • Soshi S
        • Shi R
        • Kondo H
        • Murota K.
        An experimental study on transpedicular screw fixation in relation to osteoporosis of the lumbar spine.
        Spine. 1991; 16https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199111000-00015
        • Kim DK
        • Kim JY
        • Kim DY
        • Rhim SC
        • Yoon SH.
        Risk factors of proximal junctional kyphosis after multilevel fusion surgery: More than 2 years follow-up data.
        J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2017; 60https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2016.0707.014
        • Guzman JZ
        • Feldman ZM
        • McAnany S
        • Hecht AC
        • Qureshi SA
        • Cho SK.
        Osteoporosis in cervical spine surgery.
        Spine. 2016; 41https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001347
        • Lems WF
        • Raterman HG.
        Critical issues and current challenges in osteoporosis and fracture prevention. An overview of unmet needs.
        Therapeut Adv Musculoskeletal Dis. 2017; 9: 299-316https://doi.org/10.1177/1759720X17732562
        • Rumancik S
        • Routh RH
        • Pathak RD
        • Burshell AL
        • Nauman EA.
        Assessment of bone quantity and distribution in adult lumbar scoliosis: New dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry methodology and analysis.
        Spine. 2005; 30https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000153344.06682.b2
        • Girardi FP
        • Parvataneni HK
        • Sandhu HS
        • Cammisa Jr, FP
        • Grewal H
        • Schneider R
        • et al.
        Correlation between vertebral body rotation and two-dimensional vertebral bone density measurement.
        Osteoporos Int. 2001; 12https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980170049
        • Rand T
        • Seidl G
        • Kainberger F
        • Resch A
        • Hittmair K
        • Schneider B
        • et al.
        Impact of spinal degenerative changes on the evaluation of bone mineral density with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).
        Calcif Tissue Int. 1997; 60https://doi.org/10.1007/s002239900258
        • Ehresman J
        • Pennington Z
        • Schilling A
        • Lubelski D
        • Ahmed AK
        • Cottrill E
        • et al.
        Novel MRI-based score for assessment of bone density in operative spine patients.
        Spine J. 2020; 20https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2019.10.018
        • Ehresman J
        • Schilling A
        • Yang X
        • Pennington Z
        • Ahmed AK
        • Cottrill E
        • et al.
        Vertebral bone quality score predicts fragility fractures independently of bone mineral density.
        Spine J. 2021; 21https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.05.540
        • Kanis JA.
        Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. synopsis of a WHO report WHO Study Group.
        Osteoporosis Int. 1994; 4: 368-381https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01622200
        • Shah LM
        • Hanrahan CJ.
        MRI of spinal bone marrow: Part 1, techniques and normal age-related appearances.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7005
        • Papachristou DJ
        • Blair HC.
        Bone and high-density lipoprotein: The beginning of a beautiful friendship.
        World Journal of orthopedics. 2016; 7: 74-77https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v7.i2.74
        • Constantinou C
        • Karavia EA
        • Xepapadaki E
        • Petropouloe PI
        • Papkosta E
        • Karavyraki M
        • et al.
        Advances in high-density lipoprotein physiology: surprises, overturns, and promises.
        Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2016; 310: E1-E14https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.00429.2015
        • Blair HC
        • Larrouture QC
        • Li Y
        • Lin H
        • Beer-Stoltz D
        • Liu L
        • et al.
        Osteoblast Differentiation and Bone Matrix Formation in VIVo and In Vitro.
        Tissue En Part B Rev. 2017; 23: 268-280https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEB.2016.0454
        • Papachristou NI
        • Blair HC
        • Kypreos KE
        • Papachristou DJ.
        High-density lipoprotein (HDL) metabolism and bone mass.
        J Endocinol. 2017; 233: R95-R107https://doi.org/10.1530/JOE-16-0657
        • Li S
        • Guo H
        • Liu Y
        • Wu F
        • Zhang H
        • Zhang Z
        • et al.
        Relationships of serum lipid profiles and bone mineral density of postmenopausal Chinese women.
        Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2015; 82: 53-58https://doi.org/10.1111/cen.12616
        • Yin W
        • Li Z
        • Zhang W
        Modulation of bone and marrow niche by cholesterol.
        Nutrients. 2019; 11https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11061394
        • Bandirali M
        • di Leo G
        • Papini GD
        • Messina C
        • Sconfienza LM
        • Ulivieri FM
        • et al.
        A new diagnostic score to detect osteoporosis in patients undergoing lumbar spine MRI.
        Eur Radiol. 2015; 25https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3699-y
        • Modic MT
        • Steinberg PM
        • Ross JS
        • Masaryk TJ
        • Carter JR.
        Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging.
        Radiology. 1988; 166https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.166.1.3336678
        • Berger A.
        Magnetic resonance imaging.
        BMJ. 2002; 324https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7328.35
        • Lee SY
        • Gallagher D
        Assessment methods in human body composition.
        Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2008; 11https://doi.org/10.1097/MCO.0b013e32830b5f23
        • Wehrli FW
        • Hopkins JA
        • Hwang SN
        • Song Hee Kwon
        • Snyder PJ
        • Haddad JG.
        Cross-sectional study of osteopenia with quantitative MRI imaging and bone densitometry.
        Radiology. 2000; 217https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.217.2.r00nv20527
        • Roberts N
        • Cruz-Orive LM
        • Reid NM
        • Brodie DA
        • Bourne M
        • Edwards RH.
        Unbiased estimation of human body composition by the Cavalieri method using magnetic resonance imaging.
        J Microsc. 1993; 171https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2818.1993.tb03381.x
        • Link TM
        Radiology of osteoporosis.
        Can Assoc Radiol J. 2016; 67https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carj.2015.02.002
        • Baum T
        • Rohrmeier A
        • Syväri J
        • Diefenbach MN
        • Franz D
        • Dieckmeyer M
        • et al.
        Anatomical variation of age-related changes in vertebral bone marrow composition using chemical shift encoding-based water-fat magnetic resonance imaging.
        Frontiers Endocrinol. 2018; 9https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00141
        • Kühn JP
        • Hernando D
        • Meffert PJ
        • Reeder S
        • Hosten N
        • Laqua N
        • et al.
        Proton-density fat fraction and simultaneous R2 estimation as an MRI tool for assessment of osteoporosis.
        Eur Radiol. 2013; 23https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2950-7