Osteoporosis International

, Volume 17, Issue 8, pp 1189–1195 | Cite as

Effectiveness of instant vertebral assessment to detect prevalent vertebral fracture

  • R. D. Chapurlat
  • F. Duboeuf
  • H. O. Marion-Audibert
  • B. Kalpakçioglu
  • B. H. Mitlak
  • P. D. Delmas
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

Vertebral fracture is currently underdiagnosed, despite its common severity and its value to predict further osteoporotic fracture. Morphometry using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) [vertebral fracture assessment (VFA)] is a new technique that may facilitate detection of many vertebral fractures, as images are obtained at the same time as bone mineral density (BMD) measurement, and would also allow avoiding spine radiographs.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the diagnostic value of Instant Vertebral Assessment (IVA), which is a morphometry scan using the Hologic Delphi densitometer, to detect prevalent vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women. Interobserver precision was assessed, then IVA scans were compared with lateral spine radiographs, considered the gold standard, to test diagnostic agreement between the two techniques. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated, as well as the likelihood ratio of the positive test, using sensitivity and specificity at each vertebral level.

Results

Among 85 patients of whom 50% had at least one vertebral fracture identified with radiographs, we found that interobserver precision was moderate, with frequent difficulties in discerning upper thoracic vertebrae. On a per-vertebra basis, sensitivity was around 70% from L4 to T11 and lower above T11 whereas specificity was above 90% for all vertebrae, and the negative predictive value remained above 80% from L4 to T7 and decreased above T7. On a per-patient basis, sensitivity was 0.69, specificity 0.74, positive predictive value equalled 0.72 and negative predictive value 0.71. When only grades 2 and 3 fractures were considered, results were comparable, with slightly improved specificity. Then, with the likelihood ratios calculated in our sample, we obtained posttest probabilities using the prevalence of vertebral fracture at lumbar and thoracic levels in a large sample of postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis with and without vertebral fracture [baseline data in women of the Multiple Outcomes on Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial]. At levels where fractures were most common, likelihood ratios of the positive test were good or excellent, associated with sizeable posttest probabilities.

Conclusion

IVA allowed diagnosis of vertebral fracture at levels where vertebral fracture were most common, i.e., the lumbar and mid and lower thoracic levels, but its value was weaker at the upper thoracic levels.

Keywords

DXA Morphometry Osteoporosis Vertebral fracture Vertebral fracture assessment 

References

  1. 1.
    O’Neill TW, Felsenberg D, Varlow J, Cooper C, Kanis JA, Silman AJ (1996) The prevalence of vertebral deformity in european men and women: the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study. J Bone Miner Res 1:1110–1118Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nevitt MC, Ettinger B, Black DM et al (1998) The association of radiographically detected vertebral fracture with back pain and function: a prospective study. Ann Int Med 15:793–800Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Center JR, Nguyen TV, Pocock NA et al (1999) Mortality after all major types of osteoporotic fracture in men and women: an observational study. Lancet 353:878–882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C et al (2001) Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA 285:320–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Melton III LJ (1987) Epidemiology of vertebral fractures. In: Christensen C, Johansen JS, Riis B (eds.) Osteoporosis, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Minne HW, Leidig G, Wuster C, Siromachkostov L, Baldauf G, Bickel R, Sauer P, Lojen M, Ziegler R (1988) A newly developed spine deformity index (SDI) to quantitate vertebral crush fractures in patients with osteoporosis. Bone Miner 3:335–349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eastell R, Cedel SL, Wahner HW, Riggs BL, Melton III LJ (1991) Classification of vertebral fractures. J Bone Miner Res 6:207–215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCloskey EV, Spector TD, Eyres KS, Fern ED, O’Rourke N, Vasikaran S, Kanis JA (1993) The assessment of vertebral deformity: a method for use in population studies and clinical trials. Osteoporos Int 3:138–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meunier PJ, Bressot C, Vignon E, Edouard C, Alexandre C, Courpron P, Laurent J (1978) Radiological and histological evolution of post-menopausal osteoporosis treated with sodium fluoride-vitamin D-calcium. Preliminary results. In: Courvoisier B, Donath A, Baud CA (eds) Fluoride and bone. Hans Huber Publishers, Bern, pp 263–276Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kleerekoper M, Parfitt AM, Ellis BI (1984) Measurement of vertebral fracture rates in osteoporosis. In: Christiansen C, Arnaud CD, Nordin BEC, Parfitt AM, Peck WA, Riggs BL (eds) Copenhagen international symposium on osteoporosis June 3–8, 1984, vol. 1. Department of Clinical Chemistry, Glostrup Hospital, Copenhagen, pp 103–108Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8:1137–1148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gehlbach SH, Bigelow W, Heimisdottir M, May S, Walker M, Kirkwood JR (2000) Reconition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting. Osteoporos Int 11:577–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Delmas PD, van de Langerijt L, Watts NB et al (2005) Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT Study. J Bone Miner Res 20:557–563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duboeuf F, Bauer DC, Chapurlat RD, Dinten JM, Delmas PD (2005) Assessment of vertebral fracture using densitometric morphometry. A review. J Clin Densitom 8:362–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 15:575–584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Binkley N, Faulkner KG, Kawhara-Baccus, Krueger D, Genant HK, Drezner MK (2002) Use of densitometric lateral assessment to detect prior vertebral compression fracture. J Bone Miner Res 17:S314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Damiano J, Kolta S, Porcher R, Fechtenbaum J, Dougados M, Roux C. Diagnosis of vertebral fracture by instant vertebral assessment. J Bone Miner Res 17:S355Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ferrar L, Jiang G; Eastell R, Peel NFA (2003) Visual evaluation of vertebral fractures in osteoporosis using morphometric X-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res 18:933–938PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ettinger B, Black DM, Mitlak BH, Knickerbocker RK, Nickelsen T, Genant HK, Christiansen C, Delmas PD, Zanchetta JR, Stakkestad J, Gluer CC, Krueger K, Cohen FJ, Eckert S, Ensrud KE, Avioli LV, Lips P, Cummings SR (1999) Reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with raloxifene: results from a 3-year randomized clinical trial. Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) Investigators. JAMA 282:637–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. D. Chapurlat
    • 1
  • F. Duboeuf
    • 1
  • H. O. Marion-Audibert
    • 1
  • B. Kalpakçioglu
    • 2
  • B. H. Mitlak
    • 3
  • P. D. Delmas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Rheumatology and Bone Disease and INSERM Unit 403Hôpital E HerriotLyonFrance
  2. 2.Rehabilitation MedicineIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Eli Lilly and CompanyIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations