Spondylodiscitis of the thoraco-lumbar spine: diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT vs MRI.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Giovanni Foti, Chiara Longo, Eugenio Oliboni, Niccolò Faccioli, Lorenza Sanfilippo, Massimo Guerriero, Raffaele Augelli, Leonardo Motta, Stefania Marocco
{"title":"Spondylodiscitis of the thoraco-lumbar spine: diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT vs MRI.","authors":"Giovanni Foti, Chiara Longo, Eugenio Oliboni, Niccolò Faccioli, Lorenza Sanfilippo, Massimo Guerriero, Raffaele Augelli, Leonardo Motta, Stefania Marocco","doi":"10.1007/s00330-024-11125-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) could combine the high-resolution bone window images made available by multi-detector CT technology with its capability to identify bone marrow edema (BME) in the spine, for diagnosing spondylodiscitis. Our objective was to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced MRI and non-contrast DECT to identify spondylodiscitis of the thoraco-lumbar spine.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This prospective study included 77 consecutive participants (39 males; mean age of 61) who underwent DECT and MRI (within 7 days) between January 2020 and October 2023. DECT data were post-processed on a dedicated offline workstation (SyngoVia® VB20) by using a three-material decomposition algorithm. Four radiologists, blinded to clinical data, evaluated non-contrast DECT and contrast-enhanced MRI images. The diagnosis of spondylodiscitis was based on vertebral edema, disc edema, endplate erosions, and paraspinal involvement. Diagnostic accuracy values were calculated by using biopsy as a standard of reference. A multi-reader multi-case analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Biopsy revealed a diagnosis of spondylodiscitis in 46 patients (60%). Thoracic and lumbar spondylodiscitis were diagnosed in 37/46 (80%) and 9/46 (20%) patients, respectively. DECT and MRI overall sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.91, 0.89, and 0.90, and 0.94, 0.93, and 0.93, respectively. At lumbar and thoracic levels, the difference between AUC values between DECT and MRI was not significant (p = 0.15). For DECT and MRI, a very good inter-reader agreement was achieved (k = 0.90 and k = 0.97, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Contrast-enhanced MRI represents the most accurate imaging tool for the diagnosis of spondylodiscitis. However, only a non-significant drop in diagnostic performance was achieved by evaluating non-contrast DECT images.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced MRI and non-contrast DECT for identifying spondylodiscitis of the thoraco-lumbar spine. Findings MRI was not significantly superior compared to DECT in diagnosing spondylodiscitis, whereas the inter-reader agreement was near perfect for both MRI and DECT. Clinical relevance DECT represents a fast and accurate imaging tool for the demonstration of BME, erosions, and peri-vertebral inflammation in thoraco-lumbar spondylodiscitis.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11125-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) could combine the high-resolution bone window images made available by multi-detector CT technology with its capability to identify bone marrow edema (BME) in the spine, for diagnosing spondylodiscitis. Our objective was to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced MRI and non-contrast DECT to identify spondylodiscitis of the thoraco-lumbar spine.

Materials and methods: This prospective study included 77 consecutive participants (39 males; mean age of 61) who underwent DECT and MRI (within 7 days) between January 2020 and October 2023. DECT data were post-processed on a dedicated offline workstation (SyngoVia® VB20) by using a three-material decomposition algorithm. Four radiologists, blinded to clinical data, evaluated non-contrast DECT and contrast-enhanced MRI images. The diagnosis of spondylodiscitis was based on vertebral edema, disc edema, endplate erosions, and paraspinal involvement. Diagnostic accuracy values were calculated by using biopsy as a standard of reference. A multi-reader multi-case analysis was performed.

Results: Biopsy revealed a diagnosis of spondylodiscitis in 46 patients (60%). Thoracic and lumbar spondylodiscitis were diagnosed in 37/46 (80%) and 9/46 (20%) patients, respectively. DECT and MRI overall sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.91, 0.89, and 0.90, and 0.94, 0.93, and 0.93, respectively. At lumbar and thoracic levels, the difference between AUC values between DECT and MRI was not significant (p = 0.15). For DECT and MRI, a very good inter-reader agreement was achieved (k = 0.90 and k = 0.97, respectively).

Conclusions: Contrast-enhanced MRI represents the most accurate imaging tool for the diagnosis of spondylodiscitis. However, only a non-significant drop in diagnostic performance was achieved by evaluating non-contrast DECT images.

Key points: Question To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced MRI and non-contrast DECT for identifying spondylodiscitis of the thoraco-lumbar spine. Findings MRI was not significantly superior compared to DECT in diagnosing spondylodiscitis, whereas the inter-reader agreement was near perfect for both MRI and DECT. Clinical relevance DECT represents a fast and accurate imaging tool for the demonstration of BME, erosions, and peri-vertebral inflammation in thoraco-lumbar spondylodiscitis.

胸腰椎的脊椎盘炎:双能量 CT 与 MRI 的诊断性能对比。
目的:双能计算机断层扫描(DECT)可将多探头 CT 技术提供的高分辨率骨窗图像与其识别脊柱骨髓水肿(BME)的能力相结合,用于诊断脊柱盘骨炎。我们的目的是比较对比增强 MRI 和非对比 DECT 在识别胸腰椎脊柱盘炎方面的诊断性能:这项前瞻性研究包括 77 名连续参与者(39 名男性;平均年龄 61 岁),他们在 2020 年 1 月至 2023 年 10 月期间接受了 DECT 和 MRI(7 天内)检查。DECT数据在专用离线工作站(SyngoVia® VB20)上使用三物质分解算法进行后处理。四名放射科医生对临床数据进行了盲法处理,对非对比 DECT 和对比增强 MRI 图像进行了评估。脊椎盘炎的诊断依据是椎体水肿、椎间盘水肿、终板侵蚀和脊柱旁受累。诊断准确度值是以活检作为参考标准计算得出的。结果:活组织检查显示,46 名患者(60%)被诊断为脊椎盘炎。胸椎和腰椎盘炎的诊断率分别为 37/46(80%)和 9/46(20%)。DECT 和 MRI 的总体灵敏度、特异性和 AUC 分别为 0.91、0.89 和 0.90,以及 0.94、0.93 和 0.93。在腰椎和胸椎水平,DECT 和 MRI 的 AUC 值差异不显著(P = 0.15)。对于 DECT 和 MRI,读片者之间的一致性非常好(k = 0.90 和 k = 0.97):结论:对比增强核磁共振成像是诊断脊柱盘炎最准确的成像工具。结论:对比增强磁共振成像是诊断脊柱盘炎症最准确的成像工具,但通过评估非对比 DECT 图像,诊断性能仅有不明显的下降:问题 比较对比增强核磁共振成像和非对比 DECT 对胸腰椎间盘炎的诊断效果。研究结果 MRI 与 DECT 相比,在诊断脊柱盘炎症方面并无明显优势,而 MRI 和 DECT 的读片者之间的一致性接近完美。临床意义 DECT 是一种快速准确的成像工具,可用于显示胸腰椎盘炎的 BME、侵蚀和椎体周围炎症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信