Osteoporosis International

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 825–835 | Cite as

Feasibility of opportunistic osteoporosis screening in routine contrast-enhanced multi detector computed tomography (MDCT) using texture analysis

  • M. R. K. Mookiah
  • A. Rohrmeier
  • M. Dieckmeyer
  • K. Mei
  • F. K. Kopp
  • P. B. Noel
  • J. S. Kirschke
  • T. Baum
  • K. Subburaj
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Summary

This study investigated the feasibility of opportunistic osteoporosis screening in routine contrast-enhanced MDCT exams using texture analysis. The results showed an acceptable reproducibility of texture features, and these features could discriminate healthy/osteoporotic fracture cohort with an accuracy of 83%.

Introduction

This aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility of opportunistic osteoporosis screening in routine contrast-enhanced MDCT exams using texture analysis.

Methods

We performed texture analysis at the spine in routine MDCT exams and investigated the effect of intravenous contrast medium (IVCM) (n = 7), slice thickness (n = 7), the long-term reproducibility (n = 9), and the ability to differentiate healthy/osteoporotic fracture cohort (n = 9 age and gender matched pairs). Eight texture features were extracted using gray level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM). The independent sample t test was used to rank the features of healthy/fracture cohort and classification was performed using support vector machine (SVM).

Results

The results revealed significant correlations between texture parameters derived from MDCT scans with and without IVCM (r up to 0.91) slice thickness of 1 mm versus 2 and 3 mm (r up to 0.96) and scan-rescan (r up to 0.59). The performance of the SVM classifier was evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation and revealed an average classification accuracy of 83%.

Conclusions

Opportunistic osteoporosis screening at the spine using specific texture parameters (energy, entropy, and homogeneity) and SVM can be performed in routine contrast-enhanced MDCT exams.

Keywords

Opportunistic osteoporosis screening Spine Texture analysis Trabecular bone microstructure 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Funding information

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG BA 4906/2-1 (Thomas Baum) and Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) Start-up Research Grant SRG EPD 2015 093 (Karupppasamy Subburaj). The funding agencies had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical Standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

198_2017_4342_MOESM1_ESM.docx (137 kb)
(DOC 136 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Klibanski A, Adams-Campbell L, Bassford T, Blair SN, Boden SD, Dickersin K, Gifford DR, Glasse L, Goldring SR, Hruska K et al (2001) Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. J Am Med Assoc 285(6):785–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baum T, Garcia EG, Burgkart R, Gordijenko O, Liebl H, Jungmann PM, Gruber M, Zahel T, Rummeny EJ, Waldt S et al (2015) Osteoporosis imaging: effects of bone preservation on mdct-based trabecular bone microstructure parameters and finite element models. BMC Med Imaging 15(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mookiah MRK, Baum T, Mei K, Kopp FK, Kaissis G, Foehr P, Noel PB, Kirschke JS, Subburaj K (2017) Effect of radiation dose reduction on texture measures of trabecular bone microstructure: an in vitro study. J Bone Miner Metab:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-017-0836-5
  4. 4.
    Bauer JS, Sidorenko I, Mueller D, Baum T, Issever AS, Eckstein F, Rummeny EJ, Link TM, Raeth CW (2014) Prediction of bone strength by μ ct and mdct-based finite-element-models: how much spatial resolution is needed? Eur J Radiol 83(1):e36–e42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mei K, Kopp FK, Bippus R, Köhler T, Schwaiger BJ, Gersing AS, Fehringer A, Sauter A, Münzel D, Pfeiffer F et al (2017) Is multidetector ct-based bone mineral density and quantitative bone microstructure assessment at the spine still feasible using ultra-low tube current and sparse sampling? Eur Radiol 27(12):5261–5271Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anitha D, Subburaj K, Mei K, Kopp FK, Foehr P, Noel PB, Kirschke JS, Baum T (2016) Effects of dose reduction on bone strength prediction using finite element analysis. Sci Rep 6:38441CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Showalter C, Clymer BD, Richmond B, Powell K (2006) Three-dimensional texture analysis of cancellous bone cores evaluated at clinical ct resolutions. Osteoporos Int 17(2):259–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petrou M, Sevilla PG (2006) Image processing: dealing with texture, vol 1. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pachon JH, Yadava G, Pal D, Hsieh J (2012) Image quality evaluation of iterative ct reconstruction algorithms: a perspective from spatial domain noise texture measures. In: Proceedings of the SPIE, vol 8313, p 83132kGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Valentinitsch A, Patsch JM, Burghardt AJ, Link TM, Majumdar S, Fischer L, Schueller-Weidekamm C, Resch H, Kainberger F, Langs G (2013) Computational identification and quantification of trabecular microarchitecture classes by 3-d texture analysis-based clustering. Bone 54(1):133–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vrtiska TJ, Hartman RP, Kofler JM, Bruesewitz MR, King BF, McCollough CH (2009) Spatial resolution and radiation dose of a 64-mdct scanner compared with published ct urography protocols. Am J Roentgenol 192(4):941–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang H-y, Su Z-h, Xu X, Sun Z-p, Duan F-x, Song Y-y, Li L, Wang Y-w, Ma X, Guo A-t et al (2016) Dynamic contrast-enhanced mr imaging in renal cell carcinoma: reproducibility of histogram analysis on pharmacokinetic parameters. Sci Rep 6:29146CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wolf I, Vetter M, Wegner I, Böttger T, Nolden M, Schöbinger M, Hastenteufel M, Kunert T, Meinzer H-P (2005) The medical imaging interaction toolkit. Med Image Anal 9(6):594–604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Müller D, Bauer JS, Zeile M, Rummeny EJ, Link TM (2008) Significance of sagittal reformations in routine thoracic and abdominal multislice ct studies for detecting osteoporotic fractures and other spine abnormalities. Eur Radiol 18(8):1696–1702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haralick RM, Shanmugam K et al (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 3(6):610–621Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vallières M, Freeman CR, Skamene SR, El Naqa I (2015) A radiomics model from joint fdg-pet and mri texture features for the prediction of lung metastases in soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities. Phys Med Biol 60(14):5471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support vector machine. Mach Learn 20(3):273–297Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bland JM, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet 327(8476):307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhao Q, Shi C-Z, Luo L-P (2014) Role of the texture features of images in the diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules in different sizes. Chin J Cancer Res 26(4):451PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mookiah MRK, Acharya UR, Lim CM, Petznick A, Suri JS (2012) Data mining technique for automated diagnosis of glaucoma using higher order spectra and wavelet energy features. Knowl-Based Syst 33:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferrari RJ, Rangayyan RM, Desautels JL, Frère AF (2001) Analysis of asymmetry in mammograms via directional filtering with gabor wavelets. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20(9):953–964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Qian W, Zhukov T, Song D, Tockman MS (2007) Computerized analysis of cellular features and biomarkers for cytologic diagnosis of early lung cancer. Anal Quant Cytol Histol/the International Academy of Cytology [and] American Society of Cytology 29(2):103–111Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nielsen B, Hveem TS, Kildal W, Abeler VM, Kristensen GB, Albregtsen F, Danielsen HE (2015) Entropy-based adaptive nuclear texture features are independent prognostic markers in a total population of uterine sarcomas. Cytometry A 87(4):315–325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ferrari RJ, Rangayyan RM, Desautels JL, Frere AF (2001) Analysis of asymmetry in mammograms via directional filtering with gabor wavelets. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20(9):953–964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dhara AK, Mukhopadhyay S, Khandelwal N (2013) 3D texture analysis of solitary pulmonary nodules using co-occurrence matrix from volumetric lung ct images. In: SPIE medical imaging, international society for optics and photonics, pp 867039–867039Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raja J, Khan M, Ramachandra V, Al-Kadi O Texture analysis of ct images in the characterization of oral cancers involving buccal mucosa. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41(6):475–480Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pillar of Engineering Product DevelopmentSingapore University of Technology and DesignSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyKlinikum Landshut AchdorfLandshutGermany
  3. 3.Department of NeuroradiologyKlinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of MunichMunichGermany
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyKlinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations