Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 31–39 | Cite as

Single-source dual-energy computed tomography for the assessment of bone marrow oedema in vertebral compression fractures: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study

  • Torsten DiekhoffEmail author
  • Nils Engelhard
  • Michael Fuchs
  • Matthias Pumberger
  • Michael Putzier
  • Jürgen Mews
  • Marcus Makowski
  • Bernd Hamm
  • Kay-Geert A. Hermann
Musculoskeletal
  • 373 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of single-source dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for the detection of bone marrow oedema (BME) in patients with vertebral compression fractures.

Methods

Patients over 50 years of age with radiographically suspected vertebral compression fracture of the thoracic or lumbar spine were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent DECT with sequential acquisition of 80 and 135 kVp datasets on a 320-row detector CT scanner and 1.5-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including T1-weighted and short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) sequences. Virtual non-calcium (VNCa) images were reconstructed using a three-material decomposition algorithm. Vertebrae with height loss in CT were scored for the presence of BME in both MRI and DECT and used to determine signal- and contrast-to-noise ratios (SNR and CNR). Contingency analysis using MRI as standard of reference and Fleiss’s kappa were calculated. IRB approval was obtained.

Results

In total 192 vertebral compression fractures in 70 patients (23 men, 47 women; mean age 70.7 years (SD 9.8)) were included in our analysis. DECT showed a reader-dependent sensitivity of 72% and specificity of 70% for BME. Fleiss’s kappa was .40 for DECT and .58 for MRI. T1-weighted images had significantly better SNR and CNR compared to STIR, CT, and VNCa (p < .0001); however, there was no difference between STIR and VNCa.

Conclusions

VNCa images depict BME with adequate sensitivity and specificity and can be acquired on a single-source system. Image quality is adequate but trained readers are needed for image interpretation.

Key Points

• Dual-energy CT in a single-source technique can help to detect bone marrow oedema in patients with vertebral compression fractures.

• However, given the inferior inter-rater reliability and limited specificity compared to MRI, experienced readers are needed for image interpretation.

• Dual-energy CT of the spine has limited sensitivity for the detection of bone marrow oedema in vertebra with previous surgical intervention.

Keywords

Fractures, compression Tomography, x-ray computed Oedema Spine 

Abbreviations

BME

Bone marrow oedema

CNR

Contrast-to-noise ratio

DECT

Dual-energy computed tomography

IVR

Intervertebral ratio

SD

Standard deviation

SNR

Signal-to-noise ratio

STIR

Short-tau inversion recovery

VNCa

Virtual non-calcium reconstruction

Notes

Funding

The Department of Radiology at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin received a research grant by Canon MS. Canon MS provided the software for image-evaluation. The study itself did not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Torsten Diekhoff.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this article declare relationships with the following companies: JM is an employee of Canon MS.

Statistics and biometry

Andrea Stroux kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• prospective

• cross-sectional study/diagnostic study

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2018_5568_MOESM1_ESM.docx (4.2 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 4308 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hiligsmann M, Neuprez A, Buckinx F, Locquet M, Reginster JY (2017) A scoping review of the public health impact of vitamin D-fortified dairy products for fracture prevention. Arch Osteoporos 12:57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kyriakos G, Vidal-Casariesgo A, Quiles-Sanchez LV et al (2016) Osteoporosis management in a real clinical setting: heterogeneity in intervention approach and discrepancy in treatment rates when compared with the NOGG and NOF guidelines. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 124:466–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cunningham TD, Martin BC, DeShields SC, Romero CC (2016) The impact of osteoporotic fractures compared with other health conditions in older adults living in Virginia, United States. Osteoporos Int 27:2979–2988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cauley JA, Lui LY, Paudel ML et al (2016) Impact of radiographic vertebral fractures on inpatient healthcare utilization in older women. Bone 88:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jackson SA, Tenenhouse A, Robertson L (2000) Vertebral fracture definition from population-based data: preliminary results from the Canadian Multicenter Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Osteoporos Int 11:680–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ensrud KE, Thompson DE, Cauley JA et al (2000) Prevalent vertebral deformities predict mortality and hospitalization in older women with low bone mass. Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. J Am Geriatr Soc 48:241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garfin SR, Buckley RA, Ledlie J (2006) Balloon kyphoplasty for symptomatic vertebral body compression fractures results in rapid, significant, and sustained improvements in back pain, function, and quality of life for elderly patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2213–2220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sander AL, Laurer H, Lehnert T et al (2013) A clinically useful classification of traumatic intervertebral disk lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:618–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dudli S, Ferguson SJ, Haschtmann D (2014) Severity and pattern of post-traumatic intervertebral disc degeneration depend on the type of injury. Spine J 14:1256–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Campbell SE, Phillips CD, Dubovsky E, Cail WS, Omary RA (1995) The value of CT in determining potential instability of simple wedge-compression fractures of the lumbar spine. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 16:1385–1392PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McConnell CT Jr, Wippold FJ 2nd, Ray CE Jr et al (2014) ACR appropriateness criteria management of vertebral compression fractures. J Am Coll Radiol 11:757–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wong CC, McGirt MJ (2013) Vertebral compression fractures: a review of current management and multimodal therapy. J multidiscip healthc 6:205–214PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCarthy J, Davis A (2016) Diagnosis and Management of Vertebral Compression Fractures. Am Fam Physician 94:44–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Emery DJ, Forster AJ, Shojania KG, Magnan S, Tubman M, Feasby TE (2009) Management of MRI Wait Lists in Canada. Healthc Policy 4:76–86PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nicolaou S, Liang T, Murphy DT, Korzan JR, Ouellette H, Munk P (2012) Dual-energy CT: a promising new technique for assessment of the musculoskeletal system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:S78–S86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Cecco CN, Schoepf UJ, Steinbach L et al (2017) White paper of the society of computed body tomography and magnetic resonance on dual-energy CT, part 3: vascular, cardiac, pulmonary, and musculoskeletal applications. J Comput Assist Tomogr 41:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reagan AC, Mallinson PI, O'Connell T et al (2014) Dual-energy computed tomographic virtual noncalcium algorithm for detection of bone marrow edema in acute fractures: early experiences. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38:802–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Petritsch B, Kosmala A, Weng AM et al (2017) Vertebral compression fractures: third-generation dual-energy CT for detection of bone marrow edema at visual and quantitative analyses. Radiology 284:161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karaca L, Yuceler Z, Kantarci M et al (2016) The feasibility of dual-energy CT in differentiation of vertebral compression fractures. Br J Radiol 89:20150300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bierry G, Venkatasamy A, Kremer S, Dosch JC, Dietemann JL (2014) Dual-energy CT in vertebral compression fractures: performance of visual and quantitative analysis for bone marrow edema demonstration with comparison to MRI. Skeletal Radiol 43:485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang CK, Tsai JM, Chuang MT, Wang MT, Huang KY, Lin RM (2013) Bone marrow edema in vertebral compression fractures: detection with dual-energy CT. Radiology 269:525–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gondim Teixeira PA, Gervaise A, Louis M et al (2015) Musculoskeletal wide detector CT: principles, techniques and applications in clinical practice and research. Eur J Radiol 84:892–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Diekhoff T, Hermann KG, Pumberger M, Hamm B, Putzier M, Fuchs M (2017) Dual-energy CT virtual non-calcium technique for detection of bone marrow edema in patients with vertebral fractures: A prospective feasibility study on a single- source volume CT scanner. Eur J Radiol 87:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8:1137–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Foley WD, Shuman WP, Siegel MJ et al (2016) White Paper of the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance on Dual-Energy CT, Part 2: Radiation Dose and Iodine Sensitivity. J Comput Assist Tomogr 40:846–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tao SM, Li X, Schoepf UJ et al (2018) Comparison of the effect of radiation exposure from dual-energy CT versus single-energy CT on double-strand breaks at CT pulmonary angiography. Eur J Radiol 101:92–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fuchs M, Putzier M, Pumberger M, Hermann KG, Diekhoff T (2016) Acute vertebral fracture after spinal fusion: a case report illustrating the added value of single-source dual-energy computed tomography to magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with spinal Instrumentation. Skeletal Radiol 45:1303–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li M, Qu Y, Song B (2017) Meta-analysis of dual-energy computed tomography virtual non-calcium imaging to detect bone marrow edema. Eur J Radiol 95:124–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kaup M, Wichmann JL, Scholtz JE et al (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 280:510–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suh CH, Yun SJ, Jin W, Lee SH, Park SY, Ryu CW (2018) Diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT for the detection of bone marrow oedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5411-5

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus MitteHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Freie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Spine Surgery, Center for Musculoskeletal SurgeryCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus MitteBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Canon Medical Systems Corporation Europe BVZoetermeerThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations