» Articles » PMID: 26435919

Automatic Multi-parametric Quantification of the Proximal Femur with Quantitative Computed Tomography

Overview
Specialty Radiology
Date 2015 Oct 6
PMID 26435919
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) imaging is the basis for multiple assessments of bone quality in the proximal femur, including volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD), tissue volume, estimation of bone strength using finite element modeling (FEM), cortical bone thickness, and computational-anatomy-based morphometry assessments.

Methods: Here, we present an automatic framework to perform a multi-parametric QCT quantification of the proximal femur. In this framework, the proximal femur is cropped from the bilateral hip scans, segmented using a multi-atlas based segmentation approach, and then assigned volumes of interest through the registration of a proximal femoral template. The proximal femur is then subjected to compartmental vBMD, compartmental tissue volume, FEM bone strength, compartmental surface-based cortical bone thickness, compartmental surface-based vBMD, local surface-based cortical bone thickness, and local surface-based cortical vBMD computations. Consequently, the template registrations together with vBMD and surface-based cortical bone parametric maps enable computational anatomy studies. The accuracy of the segmentation was validated against manual segmentations of 80 scans from two clinical facilities, while the multi-parametric reproducibility was evaluated using repeat scans with repositioning from 22 subjects obtained on CT imaging systems from two manufacturers.

Results: Accuracy results yielded a mean dice similarity coefficient of 0.976±0.006, and a modified Haussdorf distance of 0.219±0.071 mm. Reproducibility of QCT-derived parameters yielded root mean square coefficients of variation (CVRMS) between 0.89-1.66% for compartmental vBMD; 0.20-1.82% for compartmental tissue volume; 3.51-3.59% for FEM bone strength; 1.89-2.69% for compartmental surface-based cortical bone thickness; and 1.08-2.19% for compartmental surface-based cortical vBMD. For local surface-based assessments, mean CVRMS were between 3.45-3.91% and 2.74-3.15% for cortical bone thickness and vBMD, respectively.

Conclusions: The automatic framework presented here enables accurate and reproducible QCT multi-parametric analyses of the proximal femur. Our subjects were elderly, with scans obtained across multiple clinical sites and manufacturers, thus documenting its value for clinical trials and other multi-site studies.

Citing Articles

Segmentation methods for quantifying X-ray Computed Tomography based biomarkers to assess hip fracture risk: a systematic literature review.

Falcinelli C, Cheong V, Ellingsen L, Helgason B Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024; 12:1446829.

PMID: 39506973 PMC: 11537876. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1446829.


Male-female spatio-temporal differences of age-related bone changes show faster bone deterioration in older women at femoral regions associated with incident hip fracture.

Carballido-Gamio J, Marques E, Sigurdsson S, Siggeirsdottir K, Jensen A, Sigurdsson G J Bone Miner Res. 2024; 39(10):1443-1453.

PMID: 39151035 PMC: 11523530. DOI: 10.1093/jbmr/zjae132.


A new hip fracture risk index derived from FEA-computed proximal femur fracture loads and energies-to-failure.

Cao X, Keyak J, Sigurdsson S, Zhao C, Zhou W, Liu A Osteoporos Int. 2024; 35(5):785-794.

PMID: 38246971 PMC: 11069422. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-024-07015-6.


SSDL-an automated semi-supervised deep learning approach for patient-specific 3D reconstruction of proximal femur from QCT images.

Sultana J, Naznin M, Faisal T Med Biol Eng Comput. 2024; 62(5):1409-1425.

PMID: 38217823 DOI: 10.1007/s11517-023-03013-8.


ST-V-Net: incorporating shape prior into convolutional neural networks for proximal femur segmentation.

Zhao C, Keyak J, Tang J, Kaneko T, Khosla S, Amin S Complex Intell Systems. 2023; 9(3):2747-2758.

PMID: 37304840 PMC: 10256660. DOI: 10.1007/s40747-021-00427-5.


References
1.
Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon D, Wong J, King A, Tosteson A . Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025. J Bone Miner Res. 2006; 22(3):465-75. DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.061113. View

2.
Lang T, Sigurdsson S, Karlsdottir G, Oskarsdottir D, Sigmarsdottir A, Chengshi J . Age-related loss of proximal femoral strength in elderly men and women: the Age Gene/Environment Susceptibility Study--Reykjavik. Bone. 2011; 50(3):743-8. PMC: 3278586. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2011.12.001. View

3.
Poole K, Treece G, Ridgway G, Mayhew P, Borggrefe J, Gee A . Targeted regeneration of bone in the osteoporotic human femur. PLoS One. 2011; 6(1):e16190. PMC: 3021547. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016190. View

4.
Carpenter R, Sigurdsson S, Zhao S, Lu Y, Eiriksdottir G, Sigurdsson G . Effects of age and sex on the strength and cortical thickness of the femoral neck. Bone. 2010; 48(4):741-7. PMC: 3075958. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2010.12.004. View

5.
Keyak J, Kaneko T, Tehranzadeh J, Skinner H . Predicting proximal femoral strength using structural engineering models. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; (437):219-28. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000164400.37905.22. View