PDF herunterladen
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2022; 26(04): 491-500
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1754341
Review Article

Imaging of Metabolic Bone Diseases: The Spine View, Part II

Maria Pilar Aparisi Gómez
1   Department of Radiology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
2   Department of Radiology, IMSKE, Valencia, Spain
,
Amanda Isaac
3   School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
,
Danoob Dalili
4   Academic Surgical Unit, South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre (SWLEOC), Epsom, London, United Kingdom
5   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Epsom and St. Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
,
Anastasia Fotiadou
6   Consultant Radiologist, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, United Kingdom
,
Eleni P. Kariki
7   Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
8   Division of Informatics, Imaging & Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
,
Jan S. Kirschke
9   Interventional und Diagnostic Neuroradiology, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany
,
Christian R Krestan
10   Department of Radiology, Favoriten Hospital, Vienna, Austria
,
Carmelo Messina
11   IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy
,
Edwin H.G. Oei
12   Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
,
Catherine M. Phan
13   Service de Radiologie Ostéo-Articulaire, APHP, Nord-Université de Paris, Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France
,
Mahesh Prakash
14   Department of Radiodiagnosis & Imaging, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India
,
Nuran Sabir
15   Department of Radiology, Pamukkale University School of Medicine, Denizli, Turkey
,
Alberto Tagliafico
16   DISSAL, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
17   Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
,
Francisco Aparisi
18   Department of Radiology, Hospital Vithas Nueve de Octubre, Valencia, Spain
,
Thomas Baum
19   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
,
Thomas M. Link
20   Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California
,
Giuseppe Guglielmi
21   Department of Radiology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
,
Alberto Bazzocchi
22   Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Metabolic bone diseases comprise a wide spectrum. Osteoporosis, the most frequent, characteristically involves the spine, with a high impact on health care systems and on the morbidity of patients due to the occurrence of vertebral fractures (VFs).

Part II of this review completes an overview of state-of-the-art techniques on the imaging of metabolic bone diseases of the spine, focusing on specific populations and future perspectives. We address the relevance of diagnosis and current status on VF assessment and quantification. We also analyze the diagnostic techniques in the pediatric population and then review the assessment of body composition around the spine and its potential application. We conclude with a discussion of the future of osteoporosis screening, through opportunistic diagnosis and the application of artificial intelligence.

Keywords

osteoporosis - spine - vertebral fractures - opportunistic screening and diagnosis - body composition


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
14. September 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Williams AL, Al-Busaidi A, Sparrow PJ, Adams JE, Whitehouse RW. Under-reporting of osteoporotic vertebral fractures on computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 2009; 69 (01) 179-183
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Gossner J. Missed incidental vertebral compression fractures on computed tomography imaging: more optimism justified. World J Radiol 2010; 2 (12) 472-473
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Bauer JS, Müller D, Ambekar A. et al. Detection of osteoporotic vertebral fractures using multidetector CT. Osteoporos Int 2006; 17 (04) 608-615
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Li Y, Zhang Y, Zhang E. et al. Differential diagnosis of benign and malignant vertebral fracture on CT using deep learning. Eur Radiol 2021; 31 (12) 9612-9619
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Fink HA, Milavetz DL, Palermo L. et al; Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. What proportion of incident radiographic vertebral deformities is clinically diagnosed and vice versa?. J Bone Miner Res 2005; 20 (07) 1216-1222
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Oei L, Rivadeneira F, Ly F. et al. Review of radiological scoring methods of osteoporotic vertebral fractures for clinical and research settings. Eur Radiol 2013; 23 (02) 476-486
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC. Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 1993; 8 (09) 1137-1148
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Jiang G, Eastell R, Barrington NA, Ferrar L. Comparison of methods for the visual identification of prevalent vertebral fracture in osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2004; 15 (11) 887-896
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Lentle B, Koromani F, Brown JP. et al; Vertebral Fracture Research Groups of the CaMos, STOPP, and Rotterdam Studies. The radiology of osteoporotic vertebral fractures revisited. J Bone Miner Res 2019; 34 (03) 409-418
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Wáng YXJ, Che-Nordin N, Deng M. et al. Osteoporotic vertebral deformity with endplate/cortex fracture is associated with higher further vertebral fracture risk: the Ms. OS (Hong Kong) study results. Osteoporos Int 2019; 30 (04) 897-905
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Prior JC, Oei EHG, Brown JP, Oei L, Koromani F, Lentle BC. Where's the break? Critique of radiographic vertebral fracture diagnostic methods. Osteoporos Int 2021; 32 (12) 2391-2395
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Oei L, Koromani F, Breda SJ. et al. Osteoporotic vertebral fracture prevalence varies widely between qualitative and quantitative radiological assessment methods: the Rotterdam study. J Bone Miner Res 2018; 33 (04) 560-568
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Di Iorgi N, Maruca K, Patti G, Mora S. Update on bone density measurements and their interpretation in children and adolescents. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2018; 32 (04) 477-498
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Shuhart CR, Yeap SS, Anderson PA. et al. Executive Summary of the 2019 ISCD Position Development Conference on Monitoring Treatment, DXA Cross-calibration and Least Significant Change, Spinal Cord Injury, Peri-prosthetic and Orthopedic Bone Health, Transgender Medicine, and Pediatrics. J Clin Densitom 2019; 22 (04) 453-471
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Binkovitz LA, Henwood MJ. Pediatric DXA: technique and interpretation. Pediatr Radiol 2007; 37 (01) 21-31
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Ní Bhuachalla ÉB, Daly LE, Power DG, Cushen SJ, MacEneaney P, Ryan AM. Computed tomography diagnosed cachexia and sarcopenia in 725 oncology patients: is nutritional screening capturing hidden malnutrition?. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2018; 9 (02) 295-305
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Shen W, Punyanitya M, Wang Z. et al. Total body skeletal muscle and adipose tissue volumes: estimation from a single abdominal cross-sectional image. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2004; 97 (06) 2333-2338
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Troschel AS, Troschel FM, Best TD. et al. Computed tomography-based body composition analysis and its role in lung cancer care. J Thorac Imaging 2020; 35 (02) 91-100
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Amini B, Boyle SP, Boutin RD, Lenchik L. Approaches to assessment of muscle mass and myosteatosis on computed tomography: a systematic review. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2019; 74 (10) 1671-1678
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Löffler MT, Kallweit M, Niederreiter E. et al. Epidemiology and reporting of osteoporotic vertebral fractures in patients with long-term hospital records based on routine clinical CT imaging. Osteoporos Int 2022; 33 (03) 685-694
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Löffler MT, Sollmann N, Mei K. et al. X-ray-based quantitative osteoporosis imaging at the spine. Osteoporos Int 2020; 31 (02) 233-250
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Sekuboyina A, Bayat A, Husseini ME. et al. VerSe: A vertebrae labelling and segmentation benchmark. Med Image Anal 2021; 73: 102166 . Epub 2021 Jul 22
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Löffler MT, Jacob A, Scharr A. et al. Automatic opportunistic osteoporosis screening in routine CT: improved prediction of patients with prevalent vertebral fractures compared to DXA. Eur Radiol 2021; 31 (08) 6069-6077
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Dagan N, Elnekave E, Barda N. et al. Automated opportunistic osteoporotic fracture risk assessment using computed tomography scans to aid in FRAX underutilization. Nat Med 2020; 26 (01) 77-82
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Schwaiger BJ, Gersing AS, Baum T, Noël PB, Zimmer C, Bauer JS. Bone mineral density values derived from routine lumbar spine multidetector row CT predict osteoporotic vertebral fractures and screw loosening. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014; 35 (08) 1628-1633
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Engelke K, Keaveny TM. Letter to the editor. Br J Radiol 2019; 92 (1099): 20190115
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Rühling S, Navarro F, Sekuboyina A. et al. Automated detection of the contrast phase in MDCT by an artificial neural network improves the accuracy of opportunistic bone mineral density measurements. Eur Radiol 2022; 32 (03) 1465-1474
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Roski F, Hammel J, Mei K. et al. Opportunistic osteoporosis screening: contrast-enhanced dual-layer spectral CT provides accurate measurements of vertebral bone mineral density. Eur Radiol 2021; 31 (05) 3147-3155
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Aggarwal V, Maslen C, Abel RL. et al. Opportunistic diagnosis of osteoporosis, fragile bone strength and vertebral fractures from routine CT scans; a review of approved technology systems and pathways to implementation. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis 2021; 13: X211024029
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Yoon AP, Lee YL, Kane RL, Kuo CF, Lin C, Chung KC. Development and validation of a deep learning model using convolutional neural networks to identify scaphoid fractures in radiographs. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4 (05) e216096
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Kalmet PHS, Sanduleanu S, Primakov S. et al. Deep learning in fracture detection: a narrative review. Acta Orthop 2020; 91 (02) 215-220
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Dalili D, Bazzocchi A, Dalili DE, Guglielmi G, Isaac A. The role of body composition assessment in obesity and eating disorders. Eur J Radiol 2020; 131: 109227
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Chen Y, Yang T, Gao X, Xu A. Hybrid deep learning model for risk prediction of fracture in patients with diabetes and osteoporosis. Front Med 2021 August 26 (Epub ahead of print)
    PubMed
  • 34 Zhang B, Yu K, Ning Z. et al. Deep learning of lumbar spine X-ray for osteopenia and osteoporosis screening: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Bone 2020; 140: 115561
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Cohen A, Foldes AJ, Hiller N, Simanovsky N, Szalat A. Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis and osteopenia by routine computed tomography scan: a heterogeneous, multiethnic, middle-eastern population validation study. Eur J Radiol 2021; 136: 109568
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Yasaka K, Akai H, Kunimatsu A, Kiryu S, Abe O. Prediction of bone mineral density from computed tomography: application of deep learning with a convolutional neural network. Eur Radiol 2020; 30 (06) 3549-3557
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Adams JW, Zhang Z, Noetscher GM, Nazarian A, Makarov SN. Application of a neural network classifier to radiofrequency-based osteopenia/osteoporosis screening. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med 2021; 9: 4900907
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Chen Z, Luo W, Zhang Q. et al. Osteoporosis diagnosis based on ultrasound radio frequency signal via multi-channel convolutional neural network. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2021; 2021: 832-835
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 39 Rastegar S, Vaziri M, Qasempour Y. et al. Radiomics for classification of bone mineral loss: a machine learning study. Diagn Interv Imaging 2020; 101 (09) 599-610
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Roux C, Rozes A, Reizine D. et al. Fully automated opportunistic screening of vertebral fractures and osteoporosis on more than 150,000 routine computed tomography scans. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2021; keab878
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 41 Jang M, Kim M, Bae SJ, Lee SH, Koh JM, Kim N. Opportunistic osteoporosis screening using chest radiographs with deep learning: development and external validation with a cohort dataset. J Bone Miner Res 2022; 37 (02) 369-377
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 42 Liu L, Si M, Ma H. et al. A hierarchical opportunistic screening model for osteoporosis using machine learning applied to clinical data and CT images. BMC Bioinformatics 2022; 23 (01) 63
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 43 Sobecki J, Weigman B, Anderson-Carter I. et al. Opportunistic osteoporosis screening using routine computed tomography images to identify bone loss in gynecologic cancer survivors. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022 January 31 (Epub ahead of print)
    PubMed
  • 44 Park SY, Ha HI, Lee SM, Lee IJ, Lim HK. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of 2D and 3D measurements to determine opportunistic screening of osteoporosis using the proximal femur on abdomen-pelvic CT. PLoS One 2022; 17 (01) e0262025
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 45 O'Gorman CA, Milne S, Lambe G, Sobota A, Beddy P, Gleeson N. Accuracy of opportunistic bone mineral density assessment on staging computed tomography for gynaecological cancers. Medicina (Kaunas) 2021; 57 (12) 1386
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 46 Sharma GB, Robertson DD, Laney DA, Gambello MJ, Terk M. Machine learning based analytics of micro-MRI trabecular bone microarchitecture and texture in type 1 Gaucher disease. J Biomech 2016; 49 (09) 1961-1968
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 47 Eller-Vainicher C, Zhukouskaya VV, Tolkachev YV. et al. Low bone mineral density and its predictors in type 1 diabetic patients evaluated by the classic statistics and artificial neural network analysis. Diabetes Care 2011; 34 (10) 2186-2191
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 48 Offiah AC. Current and emerging artificial intelligence applications for pediatric musculoskeletal radiology. Pediatr Radiol 2021 July 16 (Epub ahead of print)
    PubMed
  • 49 Huynh QTV, Le NQK, Huang SY. et al. Development and validation of clinical diagnostic model for girls with central precocious puberty: machine-learning approaches. PLoS One 2022; 17 (01) e0261965
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 50 Lee H, Tajmir S, Lee J. et al. Fully automated deep learning system for bone age assessment. J Digit Imaging 2017; 30 (04) 427-441
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 51 Tajmir SH, Lee H, Shailam R. et al. Artificial intelligence-assisted interpretation of bone age radiographs improves accuracy and decreases variability. Skeletal Radiol 2019; 48 (02) 275-283
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 52 Kruse C. The new possibilities from “big data” to overlooked associations between diabetes, biochemical parameters, glucose control, and osteoporosis. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2018; 16 (03) 320-324
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar