Streamlining the MRI-Derived Vertebral Bone Quality Score for Preoperative Osteoporosis and Osteopenia Screening.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 42335328.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1177/21925682261462059 and PMC identifier 13290736.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC-ND.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
DesignRetrospective study.ObjectiveTo evaluate the predictive performance of a simplified, MRI-derived vertebral bone quality score (VBQ) using measurements at L1/2 (VBQ<sub>L1/2</sub>) for opportunistic bone quality screening, compared to the established VBQ<sub>L1-4.</sub>MethodsIn patients undergoing lumbar surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis, VBQ<sub>L1/2</sub> was assessed using circular regions of interest on sagittal T1-weighted sequences in L1 and L2, while VBQ<sub>L1-4</sub> included measurements from L1 through L4. Measurements were normalized to cerebrospinal fluid intensity at L2/3. Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured by opportunistic qCT, with osteoporosis defined as BMD < 80 mg/cm<sup>3</sup> and impaired bone quality (osteoporosis or osteopenia) as BMD < 120 mg/cm<sup>3</sup>. Agreement between VBQ<sub>L1/2</sub> and VBQ<sub>L1-4</sub> was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and predictive performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analysis with Youden's index optimization.ResultsAmong 144 patients included ((39% male, <i>n</i> = 56) the median age was 69 years (interquartile range 64-67). Osteopenia was present in 47% and osteoporosis in 22%, yielding 69% impaired bone quality. VBQ<sub>L1/2</sub> and VBQ<sub>L1-4</sub> showed excellent agreement (ICC: 0.988, 95% CI: 0.982-0.991). Predictive performance was comparable for osteoporosis (AUC: VBQ<sub>L1/2</sub> 0.71 vs. VBQ<sub>L1-4</sub> 0.69) and impaired bone quality (AUC: 0.68 vs. 0.67). For osteoporosis detection, VBQ<sub>L1/2</sub> showed a higher sensitivity (94% vs 71%) but a lower specificity (45% vs 64%), as well as for detecting impaired bone quality (sensitivity 77% vs. 47%, 56%, vs 82%).ConclusionsVBQ<sub>L1/2</sub> offers a simplified alternative to VBQ<sub>L1-4</sub> for MRI-based bone quality assessment. Further validation and threshold refinement are warranted.