Benedikt J Schwaiger1, David L Kopperdahl2, Lorenzo Nardo3, Luca Facchetti4, Alexandra S Gersing5, Jan Neumann6, Kwang J Lee7, Tony M Keaveny8, Thomas M Link9. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States. Electronic address: bschwaiger@gmx.com. 2. O.N. Diagnostics, LLC, Berkeley, CA, United States. Electronic address: david.kopperdahl@ondiagnostics.com. 3. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: lornardob@gmail.com. 4. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States. 5. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States. Electronic address: alexandra.gersing@ucsf.edu. 6. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States. Electronic address: jan.neumann@ucsf.edu. 7. O.N. Diagnostics, LLC, Berkeley, CA, United States. 8. Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, United States. Electronic address: tonykeaveny@berkeley.edu. 9. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States. Electronic address: thomas.link@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Bone fracture risk assessed ancillary to positron emission tomography with computed tomography co-registration (PET/CT) could provide substantial clinical value to oncology patients with elevated fracture risk without introducing additional radiation dose. The purpose of our study was to investigate the feasibility of obtaining valid measurements of bone mineral density (BMD) and finite element analysis-derived bone strength of the hip and spine using PET/CT examinations of prostate cancer patients by comparing against values obtained using routine multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) scans-as validated in previous studies-as a reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with prostate cancer (n=82, 71.6±8.3 years) underwent Fluorine-18 NaF PET/CT and routine MDCT within three months. Femoral neck and total hip areal BMD, vertebral trabecular BMD and femur and vertebral strength based on finite element analysis were assessed in 63 paired PET/CT and MDCT examinations using phantomless calibration and Biomechanical-CT analysis. Men with osteoporosis or fragile bone strength identified at either the hip or spine (vertebral trabecular BMD ≤80mg/cm3, femoral neck or total hip T-score ≤-2.5, vertebral strength ≤6500N and femoral strength ≤3500N, respectively) were considered to be at high risk of fracture. PET/CT- versus MDCT-based BMD and strength measurements were compared using paired t-tests, linear regression and by generating Bland-Altman plots. Agreement in fracture-risk classification was assessed in a contingency table. RESULTS: All measurements from PET/CT versus MDCT were strongly correlated (R2=0.93-0.97; P<0.0001 for all). Mean differences for total hip areal BMD (0.001g/cm2, 1.1%), femoral strength (-60N, 1.3%), vertebral trabecular BMD (2mg/cm3, 2.6%) and vertebral strength (150N; 1.7%) measurements were not statistically significant (P>0.05 for all), whereas the mean difference in femoral neck areal BMD measurements was small but significant (-0.018g/cm2; -2.5%; P=0.007). The agreement between PET/CT and MDCT for fracture-risk classification was 97% (0.89 kappa for repeatability). CONCLUSION: Ancillary analyses of BMD, bone strength, and fracture risk agreed well between PET/CT and MDCT, suggesting that PET/CT can be used opportunistically to comprehensively assess bone integrity. In subjects with high fracture risk such as cancer patients this may serve as an additional clinical tool to guide therapy planning and prevention of fractures.
PURPOSE: Bone fracture risk assessed ancillary to positron emission tomography with computed tomography co-registration (PET/CT) could provide substantial clinical value to oncology patients with elevated fracture risk without introducing additional radiation dose. The purpose of our study was to investigate the feasibility of obtaining valid measurements of bone mineral density (BMD) and finite element analysis-derived bone strength of the hip and spine using PET/CT examinations of prostate cancerpatients by comparing against values obtained using routine multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) scans-as validated in previous studies-as a reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Men with prostate cancer (n=82, 71.6±8.3 years) underwent Fluorine-18 NaF PET/CT and routine MDCT within three months. Femoral neck and total hip areal BMD, vertebral trabecular BMD and femur and vertebral strength based on finite element analysis were assessed in 63 paired PET/CT and MDCT examinations using phantomless calibration and Biomechanical-CT analysis. Men with osteoporosis or fragile bone strength identified at either the hip or spine (vertebral trabecular BMD ≤80mg/cm3, femoral neck or total hip T-score ≤-2.5, vertebral strength ≤6500N and femoral strength ≤3500N, respectively) were considered to be at high risk of fracture. PET/CT- versus MDCT-based BMD and strength measurements were compared using paired t-tests, linear regression and by generating Bland-Altman plots. Agreement in fracture-risk classification was assessed in a contingency table. RESULTS: All measurements from PET/CT versus MDCT were strongly correlated (R2=0.93-0.97; P<0.0001 for all). Mean differences for total hip areal BMD (0.001g/cm2, 1.1%), femoral strength (-60N, 1.3%), vertebral trabecular BMD (2mg/cm3, 2.6%) and vertebral strength (150N; 1.7%) measurements were not statistically significant (P>0.05 for all), whereas the mean difference in femoral neck areal BMD measurements was small but significant (-0.018g/cm2; -2.5%; P=0.007). The agreement between PET/CT and MDCT for fracture-risk classification was 97% (0.89 kappa for repeatability). CONCLUSION: Ancillary analyses of BMD, bone strength, and fracture risk agreed well between PET/CT and MDCT, suggesting that PET/CT can be used opportunistically to comprehensively assess bone integrity. In subjects with high fracture risk such as cancerpatients this may serve as an additional clinical tool to guide therapy planning and prevention of fractures.
Keywords:
18F-NaF PET/CT; Biomechanical-CT; Bone mineral density; Bone strength; Cancer-induced bone disease; Finite element analysis; MDCT; Prostate cancer
Authors: Gerd Diederichs; Thomas M Link; Marie Kentenich; Karsten Schwieger; Markus B Huber; Andrew J Burghardt; Sharmila Majumdar; Patrik Rogalla; Ahi S Issever Journal: Bone Date: 2009-01-31 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Klaus Engelke; Judith E Adams; Gabriele Armbrecht; Peter Augat; Cesar E Bogado; Mary L Bouxsein; Dieter Felsenberg; Masako Ito; Sven Prevrhal; Didier B Hans; E Michael Lewiecki Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2008 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Thomas Baum; Dirk Müller; Martin Dobritz; Petra Wolf; Ernst J Rummeny; Thomas M Link; Jan S Bauer Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2012-04-07 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: R Rizzoli; J-J Body; M-L Brandi; J Cannata-Andia; D Chappard; A El Maghraoui; C C Glüer; D Kendler; N Napoli; A Papaioannou; D D Pierroz; M Rahme; C H Van Poznak; T J de Villiers; G El Hajj Fuleihan Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Annette L Adams; Heidi Fischer; David L Kopperdahl; David C Lee; Dennis M Black; Mary L Bouxsein; Shireen Fatemi; Sundeep Khosla; Eric S Orwoll; Ethel S Siris; Tony M Keaveny Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Alexis Laugerette; Benedikt J Schwaiger; Kevin Brown; Lena C Frerking; Felix K Kopp; Kai Mei; Thorsten Sellerer; Jan Kirschke; Thomas Baum; Alexandra S Gersing; Daniela Pfeiffer; Alexander A Fingerle; Ernst J Rummeny; Roland Proksa; Peter B Noël; Franz Pfeiffer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: E Biamonte; R Levi; F Carrone; W Vena; A Brunetti; M Battaglia; F Garoli; G Savini; M Riva; A Ortolina; M Tomei; G Angelotti; M E Laino; V Savevski; M Mollura; M Fornari; R Barbieri; A G Lania; M Grimaldi; L S Politi; G Mazziotti Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 5.467
Authors: Marc A Stadelmann; Denis E Schenk; Ghislain Maquer; Christopher Lenherr; Florian M Buck; Dieter D Bosshardt; Sven Hoppe; Nicolas Theumann; Ron N Alkalay; Philippe K Zysset Journal: Bone Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 4.626
Authors: Kai Mei; Benedikt J Schwaiger; Felix K Kopp; Sebastian Ehn; Alexandra S Gersing; Jan S Kirschke; Daniela Muenzel; Alexander A Fingerle; Ernst J Rummeny; Franz Pfeiffer; Thomas Baum; Peter B Noël Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ferdinand Roski; Johannes Hammel; Kai Mei; Thomas Baum; Jan S Kirschke; Alexis Laugerette; Felix K Kopp; Jannis Bodden; Daniela Pfeiffer; Franz Pfeiffer; Ernst J Rummeny; Peter B Noël; Alexandra S Gersing; Benedikt J Schwaiger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: T M Keaveny; B L Clarke; F Cosman; E S Orwoll; E S Siris; S Khosla; M L Bouxsein Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2020-04-26 Impact factor: 5.071