Arnau Hanly, Soterios Gyftopoulos, Casey E Pelzl, Wei He, Connie Y Chang
{"title":"Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis: validation study for L1 bone density measurements using contrast-enhanced chest and abdominal CTs.","authors":"Arnau Hanly, Soterios Gyftopoulos, Casey E Pelzl, Wei He, Connie Y Chang","doi":"10.1007/s00256-025-04892-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To retrospectively validate the diagnostic power of attenuation values on chest and abdomen/pelvis CECTs, together and separately, compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA)-determined osteoporosis diagnoses, and to determine thresholds for accurate osteoporosis diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Subjects were identified using the electronic health record. Included patients received DEXA and CECT scans within 60 days of each other. Patients were excluded if taking osteoporosis medication, undergoing dialysis, receiving hormone or cancer therapy, had a history of cancer, osseous metastases, fractures, or compressions. Minimum, mean, and maximum CECT attenuation values of L1 trabecular bone axial cross-sections were measured by a non-physician in Hounsfield units (HUs) using an elliptical region of interest (ROI) tool. DEXA diagnoses were dichotomized as positive (osteoporosis) or negative (osteopenia/normal). The area under the receiver-operator characteristic curves (AUCs) were compared to identify ideal CECT attenuation thresholds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred nineteen subjects (mean age 66 ± 0.6 [range 35-92]; 196 (89%) females and 23 (11%) males) were included for analysis. Thirty-one (14%) subjects were positive and 188 (86%) were negative for osteoporosis. Minimum, mean, and maximum combined chest and abdomen/pelvis attenuation values demonstrated AUCs of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67-0.84), 0.931 (95% CI 0.88-0.99), and 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.90). The optimal mean attenuation threshold for osteoporosis diagnosis was 120 HU (84% sensitive, 90% specific). There was no statistical difference in diagnostic power between mean attenuation values of chest and abdomen/pelvis CECTs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CECT mean attenuation values of either chest or abdomen/pelvis CECTs could be used as appropriate thresholds in screening for osteoporosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":21783,"journal":{"name":"Skeletal Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"1887-1895"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Skeletal Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-025-04892-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To retrospectively validate the diagnostic power of attenuation values on chest and abdomen/pelvis CECTs, together and separately, compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA)-determined osteoporosis diagnoses, and to determine thresholds for accurate osteoporosis diagnosis.
Materials and methods: Subjects were identified using the electronic health record. Included patients received DEXA and CECT scans within 60 days of each other. Patients were excluded if taking osteoporosis medication, undergoing dialysis, receiving hormone or cancer therapy, had a history of cancer, osseous metastases, fractures, or compressions. Minimum, mean, and maximum CECT attenuation values of L1 trabecular bone axial cross-sections were measured by a non-physician in Hounsfield units (HUs) using an elliptical region of interest (ROI) tool. DEXA diagnoses were dichotomized as positive (osteoporosis) or negative (osteopenia/normal). The area under the receiver-operator characteristic curves (AUCs) were compared to identify ideal CECT attenuation thresholds.
Results: Two hundred nineteen subjects (mean age 66 ± 0.6 [range 35-92]; 196 (89%) females and 23 (11%) males) were included for analysis. Thirty-one (14%) subjects were positive and 188 (86%) were negative for osteoporosis. Minimum, mean, and maximum combined chest and abdomen/pelvis attenuation values demonstrated AUCs of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67-0.84), 0.931 (95% CI 0.88-0.99), and 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.90). The optimal mean attenuation threshold for osteoporosis diagnosis was 120 HU (84% sensitive, 90% specific). There was no statistical difference in diagnostic power between mean attenuation values of chest and abdomen/pelvis CECTs.
Conclusion: CECT mean attenuation values of either chest or abdomen/pelvis CECTs could be used as appropriate thresholds in screening for osteoporosis.
目的:回顾性验证胸腹/骨盆ct的衰减值与双能x线吸收仪(DEXA)诊断骨质疏松症的诊断能力,并确定准确诊断骨质疏松症的阈值。材料和方法:使用电子健康记录识别受试者。纳入的患者分别在60天内接受DEXA和CECT扫描。排除正在服用骨质疏松药物、接受透析、接受激素或癌症治疗、有癌症、骨转移、骨折或压迫史的患者。L1骨小梁轴向截面的最小、平均和最大CECT衰减值由非医师在Hounsfield单位(HUs)使用椭圆感兴趣区域(ROI)工具测量。DEXA诊断分为阳性(骨质疏松)或阴性(骨质减少/正常)。通过比较接收算子特征曲线(auc)下的面积,确定理想的CECT衰减阈值。结果:219例受试者(平均年龄66±0.6岁[范围35-92岁];196例(89%)女性和23例(11%)男性纳入分析。阳性31例(14%),阴性188例(86%)。最小、平均和最大胸腹/骨盆联合衰减值auc分别为0.75 (95% CI 0.67-0.84)、0.931 (95% CI 0.88-0.99)和0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.90)。骨质疏松症诊断的最佳平均衰减阈值为120 HU(84%敏感,90%特异)。胸部和腹部/骨盆ct的平均衰减值在诊断能力上无统计学差异。结论:胸部或腹部/骨盆CECT平均衰减值均可作为骨质疏松筛查的合适阈值。
期刊介绍:
Skeletal Radiology provides a forum for the dissemination of current knowledge and information dealing with disorders of the musculoskeletal system including the spine. While emphasizing the radiological aspects of the many varied skeletal abnormalities, the journal also adopts an interdisciplinary approach, reflecting the membership of the International Skeletal Society. Thus, the anatomical, pathological, physiological, clinical, metabolic and epidemiological aspects of the many entities affecting the skeleton receive appropriate consideration.
This is the Journal of the International Skeletal Society and the Official Journal of the Society of Skeletal Radiology and the Australasian Musculoskelelal Imaging Group.