In vivo comparison between computed tomography and magnetic resonance image analysis of the distal radius in the assessment of osteoporosis.
In a prospective case-control cross-sectional study, we investigated the usefulness of both computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) image analysis of the distal radius for distinguishing a small sample of fractured osteoporotic women from control women regardless of bone mineral density. The study population included 12 subjects who were divided into two groups according to their bone status. The first group consisted of six women with at least one vertebral fracture occurring in the absence of high-energy trauma, and the second group consisted of six women without disease affecting bone mass or bone metabolism. Cross-sectional and coronal slices were obtained from both CT and MR systems. For CT images, the slice thickness was 1000 jim and the plane resolution was approx 200 jim x 200 jim. MR images were obtained from a 1.5-T imager with a two-dimensional spin-echo Ti-weighted sequence leading to a slice thickness of 2000 jim and a plane resolution of 195 jim x 195 jim. Bone texture analysis was performed using fractal and structural methods leading to the measurement of 23 features. Most of the structural variables derived from histomorphometric parameters and were measured after segmentation from a binary or a skeletonized image. Bone densitometry was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry both at the lumbar spine and the nondominant femoral neck. On cross-sectional slices, 12 variables, mainly obtained from structural analysis, were significantly different between the two groups for CT images (p < 0.05) against two variables only for MR images (p < 0.05). The number of variables statistically different between the two groups was significantly higher for CT images compared with MR images (p = 0.003). In the same way, odds ratios for fracture per 1 control group standard deviation decrease were significant for 10 variables on CT images, whereas, in contrast, none of the variables measured on MRI images led to significant odds ratios. The results obtained for the two methods on coronal slices were poorer without a difference between either CT or MR images in terms of discrimination between fracture and nonfracture subjects. In conclusion, this study suggests that bone texture analysis obtained from CT compared with MRI offers a best discrimination between controls and osteoporotic patients, probably the result to the spatial resolution. which is better for CT than for MR images.
Department of Rheumatology, University-Hospital of Lille, France. bcortet@chru-lille.fr
B
B
Cortet
N
N
Boutry
P
P
Dubois
P
P
Bourel
A
A
Cotten
X
X
Marchandise
D015502:Absorptiometry, Photon; D000368:Aged; D015519:Bone Density; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D005260:Female; D017709:Fractals; D006801:Humans; D016015:Logistic Models; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D015663:Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal / Q000150:complications / Q000175:diagnosis*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011884:Radius / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000503:physiopathology*; D016103:Spinal Fractures / Q000209:etiology; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed