| Literature DB >> 30903208 |
E Burian1, K Subburaj2, M R K Mookiah2, A Rohrmeier3, D M Hedderich3, M Dieckmeyer3,4, M N Diefenbach4, S Ruschke4, E J Rummeny4, C Zimmer3, J S Kirschke3, D C Karampinos4, T Baum3.
Abstract
This feasibility study investigated the spatial heterogeneity of the lumbar vertebral bone marrow using chemical shift encoding-based water-fat MRI. Acquired texture features like contrast and dissimilarity allowed for differentiation of pre- and postmenopausal women and may serve as imaging biomarkers in the future.Entities:
Keywords: Bone marrow; Magnetic resonance imaging; Osteoporosis; Spine; Texture
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30903208 PMCID: PMC6546652 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-019-04924-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Osteoporos Int ISSN: 0937-941X Impact factor: 4.507
Fig. 1Representative segmentation of lumbar vertebral bodies 1 to 5 in the PDFF map of a 22 year old woman
Subject characteristics (age and BMI), PDFF values, and texture features averaged over L1 to L5 in pre- and postmenopausal women. Parameters were compared between the two groups with the Mann-Whitney tests (p values) and receiver operator characteristics (area under curve (AUC)). Status: 0 premenopausal, 1 postmenopausal
| Status |
| Mean | SD | AUC |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0 | 15 | 30 | 7 | < 0.001 | |
| 1 | 26 | 65 | 7 | |||
| BMI | 0 | 15 | 25.8 | 1.4 | 0.464 | |
| 1 | 26 | 25.4 | 4.3 | |||
| PDFF (L1–5) | 0 | 15 | 27.76 | 7.31 | 0.97 | < 0.001 |
| 1 | 26 | 49.37 | 8.14 | |||
| Varianceglobal | 0 | 15 | 17.97 | 1.97 | 0.71 | 0.042 |
| 1 | 26 | 19.49 | 2.53 | |||
| Skewnessglobal | 0 | 15 | 2.18 | 0.25 | 0.30 | 0.032 |
| 1 | 26 | 1.99 | 0.25 | |||
| Kurtosisglobal | 0 | 15 | 2.92 | 1.15 | 0.32 | 0.062 |
| 1 | 26 | 2.186 | 1.015 | |||
| Energy | 0 | 15 | 0.694 | 0.039 | 0.26 | 0.012 |
| 1 | 26 | 0.657 | 0.043 | |||
| Contrast | 0 | 15 | 116,340 | 16,788 | 0.97 | < 0.001 |
| 1 | 26 | 172,652 | 23,811 | |||
| Entropy | 0 | 15 | 3.227 | 0.443 | 0.79 | 0.002 |
| 1 | 26 | 3.750 | 0.505 | |||
| Homogeneity | 0 | 15 | 0.838 | 0.023 | 0.24 | 0.007 |
| 1 | 26 | 0.815 | 0.026 | |||
| Correlation | 0 | 15 | 0.845 | 0.010 | 0.60 | 0.317 |
| 1 | 26 | 0.847 | 0.010 | |||
| Sumaverage | 0 | 15 | 0.000046 | 0.000006 | 0.44 | 0.534 |
| 1 | 26 | 0.000043 | 0.000012 | |||
| Variance | 0 | 15 | 0.068 | 0.008 | 0.71 | 0.026 |
| 1 | 26 | 0.075 | 0.010 | |||
| Dissimilarity | 0 | 15 | 77.48 | 9.65 | 0.96 | < 0.001 |
| 1 | 26 | 101.91 | 12.18 |
PDFF values and texture features in L1 to L5 in pre- and postmenopausal women. Differences between vertebral levels L1 to L5 were evaluated using the Friedmann tests in pre- and postmenopausal women, separately
| Premenopausal women | Postmenopausal women | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |||
| L1 PDFF | 25.20 | 6.71 | 45.58 | 8.94 | ||
| L2 PDFF | 26.43 | 6.54 | 46.25 | 9.30 | ||
| L3 PDFF | 27.71 | 7.71 | < 0.001 | 47.74 | 8.45 | < 0.001 |
| L4 PDFF | 29.14 | 7.77 | 50.99 | 8.03 | ||
| L5 PDFF | 30.32 | 8.11 | 54.14 | 9.16 | ||
| L1 varianceglobal | 18.07 | 4.89 | 17.43 | 5.57 | ||
| L2 varianceglobal | 17.33 | 2.51 | 19.04 | 3.97 | ||
| L3 varianceglobal | 17.54 | 0.86 | 0.765 | 20.60 | 3.89 | 0.319 |
| L4 varianceglobal | 17.70 | 1.35 | 18.97 | 2.46 | ||
| L5 varianceglobal | 17.91 | 3.73 | 17.71 | 4.93 | ||
| L1 skewnessglobal | 2.33 | 0.47 | 2.16 | 0.44 | ||
| L2 skewnessglobal | 2.21 | 0.38 | 2.07 | 0.35 | ||
| L3 skewnessglobal | 2.29 | 0.21 | 0.837 | 1.89 | 0.25 | 0.112 |
| L4 skewnessglobal | 2.14 | 0.29 | 2.09 | 0.31 | ||
| L5 skewnessglobal | 2.22 | 0.44 | 2.13 | 0.46 | ||
| L1 kurtosisglobal | 3.68 | 2.30 | 2.93 | 1.93 | ||
| L2 kurtosisglobal | 3.05 | 1.70 | 2.50 | 1.44 | ||
| L3 kurtosisglobal | 3.33 | 0.96 | 0.823 | 1.70 | 0.93 | 0.128 |
| L4 kurtosisglobal | 2.72 | 1.17 | 2.57 | 1.23 | ||
| L5 kurtosisglobal | 3.16 | 2.09 | 2.85 | 1.84 | ||
| L1 energy | 0.713 | 0.065 | 0.683 | 0.074 | ||
| L2 energy | 0.699 | 0.061 | 0.672 | 0.062 | ||
| L3 energy | 0.716 | 0.031 | 0.837 | 0.643 | 0.052 | 0.188 |
| L4 energy | 0.691 | 0.051 | 0.678 | 0.055 | ||
| L5 energy | 0.697 | 0.067 | 0.678 | 0.084 | ||
| L1 contrast | 110,669 | 26,399 | 164,307 | 42,933 | ||
| L2 contrast | 110,146 | 23,269 | 157,725 | 29,226 | ||
| L3 contrast | 102,093 | 8253 | 0.374 | 171,344 | 40,098 | 0.349 |
| L4 contrast | 115,915 | 21,989 | 159,131 | 25,425 | ||
| L5 contrast | 128,277 | 28,704 | 187,539 | 49,912 | ||
| L1 entropy | 2.984 | 0.670 | 3.397 | 0.809 | ||
| L2 entropy | 3.167 | 0.654 | 3.556 | 0.686 | ||
| L3 entropy | 3.000 | 0.349 | 0.736 | 3.901 | 0.608 | 0.099 |
| L4 entropy | 3.259 | 0.541 | 3.539 | 0.659 | ||
| L5 entropy | 3.146 | 0.694 | 3.520 | 0.988 | ||
| L1 homogeneity | 0.849 | 0.037 | 0.830 | 0.044 | ||
| L2 homogeneity | 0.841 | 0.036 | 0.824 | 0.037 | ||
| L3 homogeneity | 0.851 | 0.018 | 0.765 | 0.807 | 0.032 | 0.188 |
| L4 homogeneity | 0.837 | 0.030 | 0.828 | 0.033 | ||
| L5 homogeneity | 0.840 | 0.038 | 0.827 | 0.051 | ||
| L1 correlation | 0.833 | 0.014 | 0.837 | 0.011 | ||
| L2 correlation | 0.847 | 0.010 | 0.848 | 0.012 | ||
| L3 correlation | 0.852 | 0.010 | < 0.001 | 0.851 | 0.026 | < 0.001 |
| L4 correlation | 0.848 | 0.013 | 0.856 | 0.009 | ||
| L5 correlation | 0.830 | 0.013 | 0.839 | 0.010 | ||
| L1 sumaverage | 0.000048 | 0.000016 | 0.000040 | 0.000014 | ||
| L2 sumaverage | 0.000045 | 0.000010 | 0.000044 | 0.000012 | ||
| L3 sumaverage | 0.000043 | 0.000004 | 0.878 | 0.000048 | 0.000012 | 0.057 |
| L4 sumaverage | 0.000045 | 0.000006 | 0.000041 | 0.000007 | ||
| L5 sumaverage | 0.000046 | 0.000014 | 0.000038 | 0.000012 | ||
| L1 variance | 0.069 | 0.021 | 0.068 | 0.022 | ||
| L2 variance | 0.066 | 0.012 | 0.073 | 0.016 | ||
| L3 variance | 0.064 | 0.005 | 0.765 | 0.080 | 0.015 | 0.231 |
| L4 variance | 0.067 | 0.007 | 0.071 | 0.010 | ||
| L5 variance | 0.069 | 0.016 | 0.069 | 0.019 | ||
| L1 dissimilarity | 74.30 | 17.48 | 96.93 | 24.33 | ||
| L2 dissimilarity | 74.75 | 15.50 | 96.30 | 18.55 | ||
| L3 dissimilarity | 69.70 | 5.47 | 0.780 | 104.07 | 20.95 | 0.493 |
| L4 dissimilarity | 77.24 | 14.16 | 93.57 | 15.26 | ||
| L5 dissimilarity | 81.60 | 18.44 | 103.27 | 26.67 | ||
Fig. 2Representative color-coded PDFF maps of the lumbar vertebral bone marrow of a premenopausal woman (age 22 years; mean PDFF 26.6%; contrast 125,518, dissimilarity 82.97) (a) and a postmenopausal woman (age 71 years; mean PDFF 42.7%; contrast 183,113, dissimilarity 108.75) (b)
Correlation between subject characteristics (age and BMI), PDFF values, and texture parameters (contrast and dissimilarity) in pre- and postmenopausal women. Parameters were compared with Spearman’s rho test
| Age | BMI | PDFF | Contrast | Dissimilarity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Spearman’s rho | 1 | 0.703 | 0.626 | 0.470 | |
| [years] |
| – | n.s. | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 |
| BMI | Spearman’s rho | 1 | ||||
| [kg/m2] |
| n.s. | – | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. |
| PDFF | Spearman’s rho | 0.703 | 1 | 0.796 | 0.599 | |
| [%] |
| < 0.0001 | n.s. | – | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 |
| Contrast | Spearman’s rho | 0.626 | 0.796 | 1 | 0.948 | |
|
| < 0.0001 | n.s. | < 0.0001 | – | < 0.0001 | |
| Dissimilarity | Spearman’s rho | 0.470 | 0.599 | 0.948 | 1 | |
|
| < 0.0001 | n.s. | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | – |
Fig. 3PDFF, contrast, and dissimilarity are plotted against BMI (a, c, e) and age (b, d, f). PDFF, contrast, and dissimilarity correlate significantly with age