Peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT)–based finite element analysis provides enhanced diagnostic performance in identifying non-vertebral fracture patients compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry
- 40 Downloads
Due to limitations of the predominant clinical method for diagnosing osteoporosis, an engineering model based on a dedicated CT scanner for bone density and structure was applied in fracture patients and controls. Improved diagnostic performance was observed, which supports its potential use in future research and clinical practice.
Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), the predominant clinical method for diagnosing osteoporosis, has limitations in identifying individuals with increased fracture risk. Peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) provides additional information and can be used to generate finite element (FE) models from which bone strength properties can be estimated. We investigated the ability of pQCT-FE properties to distinguish peripheral low-trauma fracture patients from healthy controls, by comparison with DXA and standard pQCT.
One hundred and eight fracture patients (77 females aged 67.7 ± 7.9 years, 31 males aged 69.7 ± 8.9 years) were recruited from a hospital fracture liaison service. One hundred and twenty healthy community controls (85 females aged 69.8 ± 8.5 years, 35 males aged 68.9 ± 7.2 years) were recruited.
Significant differences between groups were observed in pQCT-FE properties, especially at the 4% tibia site. Fracture odds increased most per standard deviation decrease in pQCT-FE at this location [shear stiffness estimate, kshear, in females, OR = 10.34, 95% CI (1.91, 43.98); bending stiffness estimate, kbend, in males, OR = 8.32, 95% CI (4.15, 33.84)]. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) was observed to be highest with pQCT-FE properties at 4% the tibia site. In females, this was 0.83 for the pQCT-FE variable kshear, compared with 0.72 for DXA total hip bone density (TH aBMD) and 0.76 for pQCT tibia trabecular density (Trb vBMD); in males, this was 0.81 for the pQCT-FE variable kbend at the 4% tibia site, compared with 0.62 for TH aBMD and 0.71 for Trb vBMD. There were significant differences in AUROC between DXA and pQCT-FE variables in both females (p = 0.02) and males (p = 0.03), while no difference was observed in AUROC between primary pQCT and pQCT-FE variables.
pQCT-FE modeling can provide enhanced diagnostic performance compared with DXA and, given its moderate cost, may be useful in clinical settings.
KeywordsAUROC bone strength fracture status finite element modeling pQCT
The authors would like to thank all subjects for their participation in this study and the University of the Third Age for providing assistance in participant recruitment. We acknowledge Dr Ashwini Kale for performing DXA and pQCT scans, Mr Richard Farrugia for coordinating the fracture liaison service from which all fracture patients were recruited and Associate Professor Andrew Bucknill for his strong support of recruitment at the fracture liaison service.
HJ is funded with a joint PhD scholarship by China Scholarship Council (funding reference: CSC201608240003) and the University of Melbourne.
Compliance with ethical standards
Verbal and written informed consents were obtained from each participant after they were provided with detailed information about the study. This study was approved by Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee (ethics approval number MH 2014.143).
Conflicts of interest
- 1.Wright NC, Looker AC, Saag KG, Curtis JR, Delzell ES, Randall S, Dawson-Hughes B (2014) 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 29(11):2520–2526PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B, Kanis JA (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Association (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8(1-2):136PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Fonseca H, Moreira-Goncalves D, Vaz M, Fernandes MH, Ferreira R, Amado F, Mota MP, Duarte JA (2012) Changes in proximal femur bone properties following ovariectomy and their association with resistance of fracture. J Bone Miner Res 30(3):282–292Google Scholar
- 6.Haentjens P, Johnell O, Kanis JA, Bouillon R, Cooper C, Lamraski G, Vanderschueren D, Kaufman JM, Boonen S, Network on Male Osteoporosis in Europe (NEMO) (2004) Evidence from data searches and life-table analyses for gender-related differences in absolute risk of hip fracture after Colles’ or spine fracture: Colles’ fracture as an early and sensitive marker of skeletal fragility in white men. J Bone Miner Res 19(12):1933–1944PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Kontulainen SA, Johnston JD, Liu D, Leung C, Oxland TR, McKay HA (2008) Strength indices from pQCT imaging predict up to 85% of variance in bone failure properties at tibial epiphysis and diaphysis. J Musculoskelet Nueronal Interact 8(4):401–409Google Scholar
- 12.Sheu Y, Zmuda JM, Boudreau RM, Petit MA, Ensrud KE, Bauer DC, Gordon CL, Orwoll ES Cauley JA; Osteoporotic Fractures in Men MrOS Research Group (2011) Bone strength measured by peripheral quantitative computed tomography and the risk of nonvertebral fractures: the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study. J Bone Miner Res 26(1):63–71Google Scholar
- 13.Dall’Ara E, Schmidt R, Pahr D, Varga P, Chevalier Y, Patsch J, Kainberger F, Zysset P (2010) A nonlinear finite element model validation study based on a novel experimental technique for inducing anterior wedge-shape fractures in human vertebral bodies in vitro. J Biomech 43(12):2374–2380PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker J-M. SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt SmartPLS GmbH. www.smartpls.com. Accessed 24 Jan 2019
- 30.Reina P, Cointry GR, Nocciolino L, Feldman S, Ferretti JL, Rittweger J, Capozza RF (2015) Analysis of the independent power of age-related, anthropometric and mechanical factors as determinants of the structure of radius and tibia in normal adults. A pQCT study. J Musculoskelet Nueronal Interact 15(1):10–22Google Scholar
- 32.Saarnio E, Pekkinen M, Itkonen ST, Kemi V, Karp H, Ivaska KK, Risteli J, Koivula M-K, Karkkainen M, Makitie O, Sievanen H, Lamberg-Allardt C (2018) Low free 25-hydroxyvitamin D and high vitamin D binding protein and parathyroid hormone in obese Caucasians. A complex association with bone? PLoS One 13(2)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Marques IDB, Araujo MJCLN, Graciolli FG, dos Reis LM, Pereira RM, Custodio MR, Jorgetti V, Elias RM, David-Neto E, Moyses RMA (2017) Biopsy vs. peripheral computed tomography to assess bone disease in CKD patients on dialysis: differences and similarities. Osteoporos Int 28(5):1675–1683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Schafer AL, Burghardt AJ, Sellmeyer DE, Palermo L, Shoback DM, Majumdar S, Black DM (2013) Postmenopausal women treated with combination parathyroid hormone (1-84) and ibandronate different microstructural changes at the radius vs. tibia: the PTH and Ibandronate Combination Study (PICS). Osteoporos Int 24(10):2591–2601PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 35.Zanchetta MB, Costa F, Longobardi V, Longarini G, Mazure RM, Moreno ML, Vazquez H, Silveira F, Niveloni S, Smecuol E, de la Paz TM, Hwang HJ, Gonzalez A, Maurino EC, Bogado C, Zanchetta JR, Bai JC (2015) Significant bone microarchitecture impairment in premenopausal women with active celiac disease. Bone 76:149–157PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 43.Stone KL, Seeley DG, Lui LY, Cauley JA, Ensrud K, Browner WS, Nevitt MC (2003) Cummings SR; Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. BMD at multiple sites and risk of fracture of multiple types: long-term results from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. J Bone Miner Res 18(11):1947–1954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar