PURPOSE: To evaluate the precision of measures of bone volume and bone volume fraction derived from high-resolution 3T MRI of proximal femur bone microarchitecture using non-uniformity correction. METHODS: This HIPAA compliant, institutional review board approved study was conducted on six volunteers (mean age 56 ± 13 years), and written informed consent was obtained. All volunteers underwent a 3T FLASH MRI hip scan at three time points: baseline, second scan same day (intra-scans), and third scan one week later (inter-scans). Segmentation of femur images and values for total proximal femur volume (T), bone volume (B), and bone volume fraction (BVF) were calculated using in-house developed software, FireVoxel. Two types of non-uniformity corrections were applied to images (N3 and BiCal). Precision values were calculated using absolute percent error (APE). Statistical analysis was carried out using one-sample one-sided t test to observe the consistency of the precision and paired t test to compare between the various methods and scans. RESULTS: No significant differences in bone volume measurements were observed for intra- and inter-scans. When using non-uniformity correction and assessing all subjects uniformly at the level of the lesser trochanter, precision values overall improved, especially significantly (p < 0.05) when measuring bone volume, B . B values using the combination of N3 or BiCal with CLT had a significant consistent APE values of less than 2.5 %, while BVF values were all consistently and significantly lower than 2.5 % APE. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the precision of high-resolution 3D MRI measures were comparable to that of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Additional corrections to the analysis technique by cropping at the lesser trochanter or using non-uniformity corrections helped to improve precision. The high precision values from these MRI scans provide evidence for MRI of the proximal femur as a promising tool for osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the precision of measures of bone volume and bone volume fraction derived from high-resolution 3T MRI of proximal femur bone microarchitecture using non-uniformity correction. METHODS: This HIPAA compliant, institutional review board approved study was conducted on six volunteers (mean age 56 ± 13 years), and written informed consent was obtained. All volunteers underwent a 3T FLASH MRI hip scan at three time points: baseline, second scan same day (intra-scans), and third scan one week later (inter-scans). Segmentation of femur images and values for total proximal femur volume (T), bone volume (B), and bone volume fraction (BVF) were calculated using in-house developed software, FireVoxel. Two types of non-uniformity corrections were applied to images (N3 and BiCal). Precision values were calculated using absolute percent error (APE). Statistical analysis was carried out using one-sample one-sided t test to observe the consistency of the precision and paired t test to compare between the various methods and scans. RESULTS: No significant differences in bone volume measurements were observed for intra- and inter-scans. When using non-uniformity correction and assessing all subjects uniformly at the level of the lesser trochanter, precision values overall improved, especially significantly (p < 0.05) when measuring bone volume, B . B values using the combination of N3 or BiCal with CLT had a significant consistent APE values of less than 2.5 %, while BVF values were all consistently and significantly lower than 2.5 % APE. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the precision of high-resolution 3D MRI measures were comparable to that of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Additional corrections to the analysis technique by cropping at the lesser trochanter or using non-uniformity corrections helped to improve precision. The high precision values from these MRI scans provide evidence for MRI of the proximal femur as a promising tool for osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment.
Authors: S C E Schuit; M van der Klift; A E A M Weel; C E D H de Laet; H Burger; E Seeman; A Hofman; A G Uitterlinden; J P T M van Leeuwen; H A P Pols Journal: Bone Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Cynthia L Leibson; Anna N A Tosteson; Sherine E Gabriel; Jeanine E Ransom; L Joseph Melton Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Christopher J Burke; William R Walter; Sushma Gaddam; Hien Pham; James S Babb; Joseph Sanger; Fabio Ponzo Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 2.199