Sensitivity and specificity assessment of DWI and ADC for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in postmenopausal patients
- 71 Downloads
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.
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.
ADC values correlated positively with BMD in women. DWI can allow quantitative evaluation of bone marrow changes and osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.
KeywordsOsteoporosis Bone marrow Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) Bone mineral density (BMD) Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI)
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.
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.
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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