CT Image-based Biomarkers for Opportunistic Screening of Osteoporotic Fractures: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal Osteoporos Int

Specialties Endocrinology
Orthopedics

Date 2024 Feb 14

PMID 38353706

Authors

Anitha D Praveen

Nico Sollmann

Thomas Baum

Stephen J Ferguson

Helgason Benedikt

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The use of opportunistic computed tomography (CT) image-based biomarkers may be a low-cost strategy for screening older individuals at high risk for osteoporotic fractures and populations that are not sufficiently targeted. This review aimed to assess the discriminative ability of image-based biomarkers derived from existing clinical routine CT scans for hip, vertebral, and major osteoporotic fracture prediction. A systematic search in PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science was conducted from the earliest indexing date until July 2023. The evaluation of study quality was carried out using a modified Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. The primary outcome of interest was the area under the curve (AUC) and its corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) obtained for four main categories of biomarkers: areal bone mineral density (BMD), image attenuation, volumetric BMD, and finite element (FE)-derived biomarkers. The meta-analyses were performed using random effects models. Sixty-one studies were included in this review, among which 35 were synthesized in a meta-analysis and the remaining articles were qualitatively synthesized. In comparison to the pooled AUC of areal BMD (0.73 [95% CI 0.71-0.75]), the pooled AUC values for predicting osteoporotic fractures for FE-derived parameters (0.77 [95% CI 0.72-0.81]; p < 0.01) and volumetric BMD (0.76 [95% CI 0.71-0.81]; p < 0.01) were significantly higher, but there was no significant difference with the pooled AUC for image attenuation (0.73 [95% CI 0.66-0.79]; p = 0.93). Compared to areal BMD, volumetric BMD and FE-derived parameters may provide a significant improvement in the discrimination of osteoporotic fractures using opportunistic CT assessments.

References

Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372:n71. PMC: 8005924. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71. View

Baum T, Muller D, Dobritz M, Wolf P, Rummeny E, Link T . Converted lumbar BMD values derived from sagittal reformations of contrast-enhanced MDCT predict incidental osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Calcif Tissue Int. 2012; 90(6):481-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00223-012-9596-3. View

Loffler M, Jacob A, Valentinitsch A, Rienmuller A, Zimmer C, Ryang Y . Improved prediction of incident vertebral fractures using opportunistic QCT compared to DXA. Eur Radiol. 2019; 29(9):4980-4989. PMC: 6682570. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06018-w. View

Pickhardt P, Graffy P, Zea R, Lee S, Liu J, Sandfort V . Automated Abdominal CT Imaging Biomarkers for Opportunistic Prediction of Future Major Osteoporotic Fractures in Asymptomatic Adults. Radiology. 2020; 297(1):64-72. PMC: 7526945. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020200466. View

Allaire B, Lu D, Johannesdottir F, Kopperdahl D, Keaveny T, Jarraya M . Prediction of incident vertebral fracture using CT-based finite element analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2018; 30(2):323-331. PMC: 6450770. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-018-4716-1. View

Baum T, Muller D, Dobritz M, Rummeny E, Link T, Bauer J . BMD measurements of the spine derived from sagittal reformations of contrast-enhanced MDCT without dedicated software. Eur J Radiol. 2010; 80(2):e140-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.08.034. View

Bodden J, Sun D, Joseph G, Huang L, Andreadis C, Hughes-Fulford M . Identification of non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients at risk for treatment-related vertebral density loss and fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2020; 32(2):281-291. PMC: 7838070. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-020-05577-9. View

Curtis E, Moon R, Harvey N, Cooper C . The impact of fragility fracture and approaches to osteoporosis risk assessment worldwide. Bone. 2017; 104:29-38. PMC: 5420448. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2017.01.024. View

Rayudu N, Dieckmeyer M, Loffler M, Noel P, Kirschke J, Baum T . Predicting Vertebral Bone Strength Using Finite Element Analysis for Opportunistic Osteoporosis Screening in Routine Multidetector Computed Tomography Scans-A Feasibility Study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021; 11:526332. PMC: 7851077. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2020.526332. View

10.

Fleps I, Guy P, Ferguson S, Cripton P, Helgason B . Explicit Finite Element Models Accurately Predict Subject-Specific and Velocity-Dependent Kinetics of Sideways Fall Impact. J Bone Miner Res. 2019; 34(10):1837-1850. DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.3804. View

11.

Leslie W, Lix L, Tsang J, Caetano P . Single-site vs multisite bone density measurement for fracture prediction. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167(15):1641-7. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.167.15.1641. View

12.

Goller S, Rischewski J, Liebig T, Ricke J, Siller S, Schmidt V . Automated Opportunistic Trabecular Volumetric Bone Mineral Density Extraction Outperforms Manual Measurements for the Prediction of Vertebral Fractures in Routine CT. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(12). PMC: 10296803. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13122119. View

13.

Keyak J, Sigurdsson S, Karlsdottir G, Oskarsdottir D, Sigmarsdottir A, Kornak J . Effect of finite element model loading condition on fracture risk assessment in men and women: the AGES-Reykjavik study. Bone. 2013; 57(1):18-29. PMC: 3786229. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2013.07.028. View

14.

Burian E, Grundl L, Greve T, Junker D, Sollmann N, Loffler M . Local Bone Mineral Density, Subcutaneous and Visceral Adipose Tissue Measurements in Routine Multi Detector Computed Tomography-Which Parameter Predicts Incident Vertebral Fractures Best?. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021; 11(2). PMC: 7913817. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11020240. View

15.

Zou D, Ye K, Tian Y, Li W, Zhou F, Zhang Z . Characteristics of vertebral CT Hounsfield units in elderly patients with acute vertebral fragility fractures. Eur Spine J. 2020; 29(5):1092-1097. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-020-06363-1. View

16.

Liebl H, Grande Garcia E, Holzner F, Noel P, Burgkart R, Rummeny E . In-vivo assessment of femoral bone strength using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) based on routine MDCT imaging: a preliminary study on patients with vertebral fractures. PLoS One. 2015; 10(2):e0116907. PMC: 4344329. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116907. View

17.

Gruenewald L, Koch V, Martin S, Yel I, Eichler K, Gruber-Rouh T . Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative dual-energy CT-based volumetric bone mineral density assessment for the prediction of osteoporosis-associated fractures. Eur Radiol. 2021; 32(5):3076-3084. PMC: 9038932. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08323-9. View

18.

Praveen A, Aspelund T, Ferguson S, Sigurdsson S, Gudnason V, Palsson H . Refracture and mortality risk in the elderly with osteoporotic fractures: the AGES-Reykjavik study. Osteoporos Int. 2024; 35(7):1231-1241. PMC: 11211172. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-024-07096-3. View

19.

Pickhardt P, Perez A, Garrett J, Graffy P, Zea R, Summers R . Fully Automated Deep Learning Tool for Sarcopenia Assessment on CT: L1 Versus L3 Vertebral Level Muscle Measurements for Opportunistic Prediction of Adverse Clinical Outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021; 218(1):124-131. PMC: 9028606. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.21.26486. View

20.

Zysset P, DallAra E, Varga P, Pahr D . Finite element analysis for prediction of bone strength. Bonekey Rep. 2014; 2:386. PMC: 3765052. DOI: 10.1038/bonekey.2013.120. View