Dong Hyun Kim1, Hye Jin Yoo2,3, Sung Hwan Hong2,3,4, Ja-Young Choi2,3, Hee Dong Chae2,3, Bo Mi Chung5. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul National University, Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Korea. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. 4 Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Korea. 5. 5 Department of Radiology, Veterans Health Service Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to differentiate malignant compression fractures from acute osteoporotic compression fractures of the spine by use of a Dixon MRI sequence to quantify fat fraction (FF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four vertebral compression fractures were assessed with turbo spin-echo T1-weighted and six-echo Dixon sequences for FF quantification at 3-T MRI. The fractures were divided into malignant compression fractures (n = 24) and acute osteoporotic compression fractures (n = 20). Two radiologists independently measured quantitative parameters from ROIs in the fractures, including the T1 signal intensity of the fracture, the FF of the fracture, and the FF ratio (fracture FF divided by normal marrow FF). The mean values of the parameters were compared between the two groups, interobserver reliability between two radiologists was assessed, ROC curves were analyzed, and logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: The fracture FF and FF ratio of malignant compression fractures were significantly lower than those of acute osteoporotic compression fractures (fracture FF, 2.73% vs 14.36% [p < 0.001]; FF ratio, 0.05 vs 0.22 [p < 0.001]). There was no difference in T1 signal intensity of the fracture. The ROC AUC of fracture FF was 0.98 and of FF ratio was 0.95. In logistic regression analysis, fracture FF remained a significant variable that could be used to independently differentiate malignant from acute osteoporotic compression fractures (odds ratio, 0.33; p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: FF and FF ratio obtained from FF maps obtained with a six-echo Dixon MRI sequence may be useful for differentiating acute osteoporotic compression fractures from malignant compression fractures.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to differentiate malignant compression fractures from acute osteoporotic compression fractures of the spine by use of a Dixon MRI sequence to quantify fat fraction (FF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four vertebral compression fractures were assessed with turbo spin-echo T1-weighted and six-echo Dixon sequences for FF quantification at 3-T MRI. The fractures were divided into malignant compression fractures (n = 24) and acute osteoporotic compression fractures (n = 20). Two radiologists independently measured quantitative parameters from ROIs in the fractures, including the T1 signal intensity of the fracture, the FF of the fracture, and the FF ratio (fracture FF divided by normal marrow FF). The mean values of the parameters were compared between the two groups, interobserver reliability between two radiologists was assessed, ROC curves were analyzed, and logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: The fracture FF and FF ratio of malignant compression fractures were significantly lower than those of acute osteoporotic compression fractures (fracture FF, 2.73% vs 14.36% [p < 0.001]; FF ratio, 0.05 vs 0.22 [p < 0.001]). There was no difference in T1 signal intensity of the fracture. The ROC AUC of fracture FF was 0.98 and of FF ratio was 0.95. In logistic regression analysis, fracture FF remained a significant variable that could be used to independently differentiate malignant from acute osteoporotic compression fractures (odds ratio, 0.33; p < 0.005). CONCLUSION:FF and FF ratio obtained from FF maps obtained with a six-echo Dixon MRI sequence may be useful for differentiating acute osteoporotic compression fractures from malignant compression fractures.
Authors: Frederic Carsten Schmeel; Julian Alexander Luetkens; Simon Jonas Enkirch; Andreas Feißt; Christoph Hans-Jürgen Endler; Leonard Christopher Schmeel; Peter Johannes Wagenhäuser; Frank Träber; Hans Heinz Schild; Guido Matthias Kukuk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Erik Rud; Daniyal Noor; Kristina Flor Galtung; Fredrik Ottosson; Maciej Jacewicz; Eduard Baco; Peter Mæhre Lauritzen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: F T Gassert; A Kufner; F G Gassert; Y Leonhardt; S Kronthaler; B J Schwaiger; C Boehm; M R Makowski; J S Kirschke; T Baum; D C Karampinos; A S Gersing Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2021-09-18 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Sebastien Bacher; Steven David Hajdu; Yael Maeder; Vincent Dunet; Tom Hilbert; Patrick Omoumi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 5.315