Advertisement

Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy CT and virtual non-calcium techniques to evaluate bone marrow edema in vertebral compression fractures

  • Giovanni FotiEmail author
  • Alberto Beltramello
  • Matteo Catania
  • Stefano Rigotti
  • Gerardo Serra
  • Giovanni Carbognin
COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate DECT diagnostic accuracy in the identification of vertebral bone marrow edema, using MRI as standard of reference.

Methods

This prospective institutional review board-approved study included 76 consecutive patients (29 males and 47 females; mean age 62.3, range 51–82 years) studied with DECT (90 kV and tin filter 150 kV) and MRI within 7 days. Three radiologists evaluated DECT (reader 1 and 2) and MRI images (reader 3). Diagnostic accuracy of the DECT maps (qualitative assessment) and of the CT numbers (quantitative assessment), interobserver and intraobserver agreements were calculated.

Results

MRI revealed 61 edematous vertebrae and 52 collapsed non-edematous vertebrae. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV and accuracy of the qualitative assessment of the DECT maps were 88.6, 92.3, 93.1, 87.3 and 90.3%, for reader 1, 90.2, 90.3, 91.6, 88.7 and 90.3, for reader 2, and 91.8, 90.4, 91.6, 90.4 and 91.1% for quantitative analysis, respectively. DECT numbers were significantly different between positive (mean − 23 HU, range − 189, 29 HU) and negative cases (mean − 126 HU, range − 321, − 66 HU) with p < 0.001. The ROC curve analysis revealed an AUC of 0.886 (95% confidence interval 0.722–0.913). The interobserver and intraobserver agreements were near perfect (k = 0.87 and k = 0.83, respectively).

Conclusion

DECT represents an accurate imaging technique for demonstrating bone marrow edema in vertebral compression fracture, if compared to MRI.

Keywords

Vertebral compression fractures MRI TIRM Dual-energy CT Bone marrow edema 

Abbreviations

DECT

Dual-energy computed tomography

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

PPV

Positive predictive value

NPV

Negative predictive value

ROC

Receiver operator curve

AUC

Area under the curve

TIRM

Turbo inversion-recovery magnitude sequences

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standard of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standard.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients enrolled for this prospective study.

References

  1. 1.
    Bierry G, Venkatasamy A, Kremer S et al (2014) Dual-energy CT in vertebral compression fractures: performance of visual and quantitative analysis for bone marrow edema demonstration with comparison to MRI. Skelet Radiol 43:485–492.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-013-1812-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gehlbach SH, Bigelow C, Heimisdottir M et al (2000) Recognition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting. Osteoporos Int J 11:577–582.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Papaioannou A, Watts NB, Kendler DL et al (2002) Diagnosis and management of vertebral fractures in elderly adults. Am J Med 113(3):220–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karaca L, Yuceler Z, Kantarci M et al (2016) The feasibility of dual-energy CT in differentiation of vertebral compression fractures. Br J Radiol 89(1057):20150300.  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heini PF, Wälchli B, Berlemann U (2000) Percutaneous transpedicular vertebroplasty with PMMA: operative technique and early results—a prospective study for the treatment of osteoporotic compression fractures. Eur Spine J 9(5):445–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klazen CA, Lohle PN, de Vries J et al (2010) Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet 376(9746):1085–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Old JL, Calvert M (2004) Vertebral compression fractures in the elderly. Am Fam Physician 69(1):111–116Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang CK, Tsai JM, Chuang MT et al (2013) Bone marrow edema in vertebral compression fractures: detection with dual-energy CT. Radiology 269:525–533.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13122577 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tanigawa N, Komemushi A, Kariya S et al (2006) Percutaneous vertebroplasty: relationship between vertebral body bone marrow edema pattern on MR images and initial clinical response. Radiology 239:195–200.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2391050073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Han IH, Chin DK, Kuh SU et al (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging findings of subsequent fractures after vertebroplasty. Neurosurgery 64:740–744.  https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000339120.41053.F1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mathis JM, Barr JD, Belkoff SM et al (2001) Percutaneous vertebroplasty: a developing standard of care for vertebral compression fractures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 22:373–381Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carberry GA, Pooler BD, Binkley N et al (2013) Unreported vertebral body compression fractures at abdominal multidetector CT. Radiology 268:120–126.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121632 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frellesen C, Azadegan M, Martin SS et al (2018) Dual-energy computed tomography-based display of bone marrow edema in incidental vertebral compression fractures: diagnostic accuracy and characterization in oncological patients undergoing routine staging computed tomography. Invest Radiol 53(7):409–416.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000458 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vela JH, Wertz CI, Onstott KL et al (2017) Trauma imaging: a literature review. Radiol Technol 88(3):263–276 (Review) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karçaaltincaba M, Aktas A (2011) Dual-energy CT revisited with multidetector CT: review of principles and clinical applications. Diagn Interv Radiol 17:181–194.  https://doi.org/10.4261/1305-3825.dir.3860-10.0 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson TR, Krauss B, Sedlmair M et al (2007) Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 17:1510–1517.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0517-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Magarelli N, De Santis V, Marziali G et al (2018) Application and advantages of monoenergetic reconstruction images for the reduction of metallic artifacts using dual-energy CT in knee and hip prostheses. Radiol Med 123(8):593–600.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-018-0881-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horat L, Hamie MQ, Huber FA, Guggenberger R (2018) Optimization of monoenergetic extrapolations in dual-energy CT for metal artifact reduction in different body regions and orthopedic implants. Acad Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.06.008 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guggenberger R, Winklhofer S, Osterhoff G et al (2012) Metallic artefact reduction with monoenergetic dual-energy CT: systematic ex vivo evaluation of posterior spinal fusion implants from various vendors and different spine levels. Eur Radiol 22(11):2357–2364.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2501-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wortman JR, Uyeda JW, Fulwadhva UP et al (2018) Dual-energy CT for abdominal and pelvic trauma. Radiographics 38(2):586–602.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018170058 (Review) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Petritsch B, Kosmala A, Weng AM, Krauss B, Heidemeier A, Wagner R, Heintel TM, Gassenmaier T, Bley TA (2017) Vertebral compression fractures: third-generation dual-energy CT for detection of bone marrow edema at visual and quantitative analyses. Radiology 284(1):161–168.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017162165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaup M, Wichmann JL, Scholtz JE, Beeres M, Kromen W, Albrecht MH, Lehnert T, Boettcher M, Vogl TJ, Bauer RW (2016) Dual-energy CT-based display of bone marrow edema in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: impact on diagnostic accuracy of radiologists with varying levels of experience in correlation to MR imaging. Radiology 280(2):510–519.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016150472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8(9):1137–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pache G, Bulla S, Baumann T et al (2012) Dose reduction does not affect detection of bone marrow lesions with dual-energy CT virtual noncalcium technique. Acad Radiol 19(12):1539–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyIRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria HospitalNegrarItaly
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryIRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria HospitalNegrarItaly
  3. 3.Department of Anesthesia and Analgesic TherapyIRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria HospitalNegrarItaly

Personalised recommendations