nach oben

Die Radiologie

Erschienen in:

21.08.2023 | Original articles

Measurement of Hounsfield units on proximal femur computed tomography for predicting regional osteoporosis

verfasst von: Junlu Zhao, Zhai Liu, Qingyun Ren, Guanwei Nie, Deyuan Zhao

Erschienen in: Die Radiologie | Sonderheft 2/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

This study was designed to investigate the use of proximal femoral Hounsfield units (HU) in conventional abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) to predict hip osteoporosis by coupling with data from quantitative CT (QCT).

Methods

In this study, 315 patients who underwent routine abdominal and pelvic CT with the proximal femur included in the scanning range were also subjected to QCT of the proximal femur. Pearson correlation test was performed to analyze the correlations of the femoral head, femoral neck, proximal femur, and femoral trochanter CT HU with the femoral neck, femoral trochanter, and intertrochanteric femur bone mineral density (BMD) values from QCT. The diagnostic performance of CT HU measurement of the proximal femur for osteoporosis was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Results

The CT HU of the proximal femur showed the highest correlation with the BMD value of the hip (r = 0.826; p < 0.01). The mean CT HU of the proximal femur differed significantly (all p < 0.01) for the three QCT-defined BMD categories of osteoporosis (192.23 HU vs. 188.71), of osteopenia (247.86 HU vs. 248.36 HU), and of normal individuals (308.13 HU vs. 310.41 HU) in left and right sides, respectively. In the ROC curve analysis, the area under the ROC curve values to predict osteoporosis in the left and right proximal femurs were 0.942 and 0.941, respectively.

Conclusion

The CT HU of the proximal femur was significantly associated with the BMD value of the hip measured by QCT. The CT HU of the proximal femur is highly effective in diagnosing osteoporosis and could be used for hip osteoporosis screening.

(1993) Consensus development conference: diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. Conference report. Am J Med 94(6):646–650

Johnell O, Kanis JA (2006) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 17:1726–1733CrossRefPubMed

Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA (1997) World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 7(5):407–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00004148 (PMID: 9425497)CrossRefPubMed

Yusuf AA, Cummings SR, Watts NB, Feudjo MT et al (2018) Real-world effectiveness of osteoporosis therapies for fracture reduction in post-menopausal women. Arch Osteoporos 13(1):33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-018-0439-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lim HK, Ha HI, Park SY et al (2019) Comparison of the diagnostic performance of CT Hounsfield unit histogram analysis and dual-energy X‑ray absorptiometry in predicting osteoporosis of the femur. Eur Radiol 29(4):1831–1840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5728-0CrossRefPubMed

Wang P, She W, Mao Z et al (2021) Use of routine computed tomography scans for detecting osteoporosis in thoracolumbar vertebral bodies. Skelet Radiol 50(2):371–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03573-yCrossRef

Wagner SC, Formby PM, Helgeson MD et al (2016) Diagnosing the undiagnosed: osteoporosis in patients undergoing lumbar fusion. Spine (phila Pa 1976) 41(21):E1279–E1283. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001612CrossRefPubMed

Formby PM, Kang DG, Helgeson MD et al (2016) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with osteoporosis. Global Spine J 6(7):660–664. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1578804CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Li YL, Wong KH, Law MW et al (2018) Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis in abdominal computed tomography for Chinese population. Arch Osteoporos 13(1):76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-018-0492-yCrossRefPubMed

10.

Kılınc RM, Açan AE, Türk G et al (2022) Evaluation of femoral head bone quality by Hounsfield units: a comparison with dual-energy X‑ray absorptiometry. Acta Radiol 63(7):933–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/02841851211021035CrossRefPubMed

11.

Lim HK, Ha HI, Park SY et al (2021) Prediction of femoral osteoporosis using machine-learning analysis with radiomics features and abdomen-pelvic CT: A retrospective single center preliminary study. Plos One 16(3):e247330. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247330

12.

American College of Radiology (2018) ACR-SPR-SSR practice parameter for the performance of musculoskeletal quantitative computed tomography (QCT). American College of Radiology, Reston. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/QCT.pdf?la. Accessed 30. May 2022CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Rozental TD, Makhni EC, Day CS et al (2008) Improving evaluation and treatment for osteoporosis following distal radial fractures. A prospective randomized intervention. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(5):953–961. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.01121CrossRefPubMed

14.

Lang TF, Guglielmi G, van Kuijk C et al (2002) Measurement of bone mineral density at the spine and proximal femur by volumetric quantitative computed tomography and dual-energy x‑ray absorptiometry in elderly women with and without vertebral fractures. Bone 30(1):247–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/s8756-3282(01)00647-0CrossRefPubMed

15.

Jing S, Li X, Zhang L et al (2011) Comparison of BMD value measured by QCT and DXA in patients with multiple myeloma. Chin J Med Imaging 19(12):887–889

16.

Pickhardt PJ, Bodeen G, Brett A et al (2015) Comparison of femoral neck BMD value evaluation obtained using lunar DXA and QCT with asynchronous calibration from CT Colonography. J Clin Densitom 18(1):5–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2014.03.002CrossRefPubMed

17.

Gausden EB, Nwachukwu BU, Schreiber JJ et al (2017) Opportunistic use of CT imaging for osteoporosis screening and bone density assessment: A qualitative systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(18):1580–1590. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00749CrossRefPubMed

18.

Hendrickson NR, Pickhardt PJ, Del Rio AM et al (2018) Bone mineral density T‑scores derived from CT attenuation numbers (Hounsfield units): clinical utility and correlation with dual-energy X‑ray absorptiometry. Iowa Orthop J 38:25–31PubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Schreiber JJ, Anderson PA, Rosas HG et al (2011) Hounsfield units for assessing bone mineral density and strength: a tool for osteoporosis management. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(11):1057–1063. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00160CrossRefPubMed

20.

Nappo KE, Christensen DL, Wolfe JA et al (2018) Glenoid neck Hounsfield units on computed tomography can accurately identify patients with low bone mineral density. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27(7):1268–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.11.008CrossRefPubMed

21.

Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT et al (2003) Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100(24):13761–13766. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2235592100CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Petley GW, Taylor PA, Murrills AJ et al (2000) An Investigation of the diagnostic value of bilateral femoral neck bone mineral density measurements. Osteoporos Int 11(8):675–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070065CrossRefPubMed

23.

Johannesdottir F, Turmezei T, Poole KE (2014) Cortical bone assessed with clinical computed tomography at the proximal femur. J Bone Miner Res 29(4):771–783. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2199CrossRefPubMed

24.

Lee SY, Kwon SS, Kim HS et al (2015) Reliability and validity of lower extremity computed tomography as a screening tool for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 26(4):1387–1394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-3013-xCrossRefPubMed

25.

Kim KJ, Dong HK, Lee JI et al (2019) Hounsfield units on lumbar computed tomography for predicting regional bone mineral density. Open Med (wars) 14:545–551. https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2019-0061CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Measurement of Hounsfield units on proximal femur computed tomography for predicting regional osteoporosis
verfasst von: Junlu Zhao
Zhai Liu
Qingyun Ren
Guanwei Nie
Deyuan Zhao
Publikationsdatum: 21.08.2023
Verlag: Springer Medizin
Erschienen in: Die Radiologie / Ausgabe Sonderheft 2/2023
Print ISSN: 2731-7048
Elektronische ISSN: 2731-7056
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-023-01190-z

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Measurement of Hounsfield units on proximal femur computed tomography for predicting regional osteoporosis

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

Update Radiologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Sonderheft 2/2023

The role of diffusion magnetic resonance imaging in determining tumor aggressiveness during preoperative surgical planning in early-stage endometrial cancer

Attitudes of Gynecologists toward Referral of Women to Breast Imaging Clinics for Breast Cancer Screening or Diagnosis

The overlooked symptom of coccydynia: evaluation of sacrococcygeal morphologic and morphometric findings

Brain damage evaluation via arterial spin labeling perfusion imaging for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

Assessment of the corpus callosum size in male individuals with high intelligence quotient (members of Mensa International)

Safety of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Pregnancy

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

Update Radiologie