Advertisement

Sensitivity and specificity assessment of DWI and ADC for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in postmenopausal patients

  • Mohammad Momeni
  • Mohammad AsadzadehEmail author
  • Karim Mowla
  • Mohammad Ghasem Hanafi
  • Mohammad Momen Gharibvand
  • Aliakbar Sahraeizadeh
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

In this study, we prospectively investigated the diagnostic capability of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) in assessing vertebral marrow changes in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Materials and methods

Sixty postmenopausal women (mean age 60.2 ± 6.11 years) underwent both dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) of the spine and MRI. Results were acquired from each patient’s L2 to L4, for a total of 180 lumbar vertebrae. Based on bone mineral density (BMD) measurements obtained from DEXA, the vertebrae were divided into three groups as follows: normal (n = 52), osteopenic (n = 92), and osteoporotic (n = 36). DWI of the vertebral body was performed to assess the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). The ADC outcomes were compared among the three groups and correlated with BMD.

Results

ADC values (× 10−6 mm2/s) were significantly lower in the osteoporotic group (135.67 ± 44.10) in comparison to the normal group (561.85 ± 190.37) (P = 0.0001). The results showed a positive correlation between ADC and BMD values (r = 0.748, P = 0.0001). In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the area under the curve for DWI was 0.912 (P = 0.001). A cut-off value of 400 mm2/s for the diagnosis of osteoporosis; had sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 90.90%, 83.34%, 88.89%, 93.75%, and 76.93%, respectively.

Conclusion

ADC values correlated positively with BMD in women. DWI can allow quantitative evaluation of bone marrow changes and osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Keywords

Osteoporosis Bone marrow Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) Bone mineral density (BMD) Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) 

Notes

Authors’ contributions

Study conception and design: MA, MM, KM, MMG, MGH. Acquisition of data: MA MM, AS. Analysis and interpretation of data: MA, MMG, MM, AS. Drafting of manuscript: MA, KM, MGH, MMG, AS. Critical revision: MM, AS. Final approval and guarantor of the article: MA, MMG, MM, KM, MGH, AS.

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 standards of committee on Publication Ethics of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (IR.AJUMS.REC.1397.067) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Agrawal K, Agarwal Y, Chopra RK, Batra A, Chandra R, Thukral BB (2015) Evaluation of MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted MRI in postmenopausal bone strength. Cureus 7(9):e327.  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.327 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    He J, Fang H, Na Li X (2018) Vertebral bone marrow diffusivity in normal adults with varying bone densities at 3T diffusion-weighted imaging. Acta Radiol 59(1):89–96.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185117704235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tang GY, Lv ZW, Tang RB, Liu Y, Peng YF, Li W, Cheng YS (2010) Evaluation of MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted MRI in detecting bone marrow changes in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Clin Radiol 65(5):377–381.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2009.12.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koyama H, Yoshihara H, Kotera M, Tamura T, Sugimura K (2013) The quantitative diagnostic capability of routine MR imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging in osteoporosis patients. Clin Imaging 37(5):925–929.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2013.05.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yeung DGJ, Antonio G, Lee F, Wong S, Lau E (2004) Bone marrow fat content in osteoporosis; evaluation with localized proton MR spectroscopy. Proc Intl Reson Med 11:786–790Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kanis JA (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: synopsis of a WHO report. WHO Study Group. Osteoporos Int 4(6):368–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Griffith JF, Yeung DK, Antonio GE, Wong SY, Kwok TC, Woo J, Leung PC (2006) Vertebral marrow fat content and diffusion and perfusion indexes in women with varying bone density: MR evaluation. Radiology 241(3):831–838.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2413051858 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fanucci E, Manenti G, Masala S, Laviani F, Di Costanzo G, Ludovici A, Cozzolino V, Floris R, Simonetti G (2007) Multiparameter characterisation of vertebral osteoporosis with 3-T MR. Radiol Med 112(2):208–223.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-007-0136-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blake GM, Fogelman I (2008) How important are BMD accuracy errors for the clinical interpretation of DXA scans? J Bone Miner Res 23(4):457–462.  https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.071119 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nouh MR, Eid AF (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging of the spinal marrow: Basic understanding of the normal marrow pattern and its variant. World J Radiol 7(12):448–458.  https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v7.i12.448 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karampinos DC, Ruschke S, Dieckmeyer M, Diefenbach M, Franz D, Gersing AS, Krug R, Baum T (2018) Quantitative MRI and spectroscopy of bone marrow. J Magn Reson Imaging 47(2):332–353.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25769 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yeung DK, Wong SY, Griffith JF, Lau EM (2004) Bone marrow diffusion in osteoporosis: evaluation with quantitative MR diffusion imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 19(2):222–228.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.10453 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hatipoglu HG, Selvi A, Ciliz D, Yuksel E (2007) Quantitative and diffusion MR imaging as a new method to assess osteoporosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28(10):1934–1937.  https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A0704 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu Y, Tang GY, Tang RB, Peng YF, Li W (2010) Assessment of bone marrow changes in postmenopausal women with varying bone densities: magnetic resonance spectroscopy and diffusion magnetic resonance imaging. Chin Med J (Engl) 123(12):1524–1527Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Report of a WHO Study Group (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 843:1–129Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pernow Y, Hauge EM, Linder K, Dahl E, Saaf M (2009) Bone histomorphometry in male idiopathic osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int 84(6):430–438.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-009-9239-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Griffith JF, Yeung DK, Ahuja AT, Choy CW, Mei WY, Lam SS, Lam TP, Chen ZY, Leung PC (2009) A study of bone marrow and subcutaneous fatty acid composition in subjects of varying bone mineral density. Bone 44(6):1092–1096.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2009.02.022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duque G (2008) Bone and fat connection in aging bone. Curr Opin Rheumatol 20(4):429–434.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0b013e3283025e9c CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Botolin S, McCabe LR (2007) Bone loss and increased bone adiposity in spontaneous and pharmacologically induced diabetic mice. Endocrinology 148(1):198–205.  https://doi.org/10.1210/en.2006-1006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosen CJ, Bouxsein ML (2006) Mechanisms of disease: is osteoporosis the obesity of bone? Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2(1):35–43.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0070 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schellinger D, Lin CS, Lim J, Hatipoglu HG, Pezzullo JC, Singer AJ (2004) Bone marrow fat and bone mineral density on proton MR spectroscopy and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: their ratio as a new indicator of bone weakening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183(6):1761–1765.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.183.6.01831761 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Blake GM, Griffith JF, Yeung DK, Leung PC, Fogelman I (2009) Effect of increasing vertebral marrow fat content on BMD measurement, T-Score status and fracture risk prediction by DXA. Bone 44(3):495–501.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2008.11.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li X, Kuo D, Schafer AL, Porzig A, Link TM, Black D, Schwartz AV (2011) Quantification of vertebral bone marrow fat content using 3 Tesla MR spectroscopy: reproducibility, vertebral variation, and applications in osteoporosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 33(4):974–979.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22489 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ward R, Caruthers S, Yablon C, Blake M, DiMasi M, Eustace S (2000) Analysis of diffusion changes in posttraumatic bone marrow using navigator-corrected diffusion gradients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174(3):731–734.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.174.3.1740731 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nonomura Y, Yasumoto M, Yoshimura R, Haraguchi K, Ito S, Akashi T, Ohashi I (2001) Relationship between bone marrow cellularity and apparent diffusion coefficient. J Magn Reson Imaging 13(5):757–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Momeni
    • 1
  • Mohammad Asadzadeh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Karim Mowla
    • 2
  • Mohammad Ghasem Hanafi
    • 1
  • Mohammad Momen Gharibvand
    • 1
  • Aliakbar Sahraeizadeh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, School of MedicineAhvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesAhvazIran
  2. 2.Department of Rheumatology, School of MedicineAhvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesAhvazIran

Personalised recommendations