Intra-and inter-reader reliability of semi-automated quantitative morphometry measurements and vertebral fracture assessment using lateral scout views from computed tomography

SummaryIntra-and inter-reader reliability of semi-automated quantitative vertebral morphometry measurements was determined using lateral computed tomography (CT) scout views. The method requires less time than conventional morphometry. Reliability was excellent for vertebral height measurements, good for height ratios, and comparable to semi-quantitative grading by radiologists for identification of vertebral fractures.IntroductionUnderdiagnosis and undertreatment of vertebral fracture (VFx) is a well-known problem worldwide. Thus, new methods are needed to facilitate identification of VFx. This study aimed to determine intra- and inter-reader reliability of semi-automated quantitative vertebral morphometry based on shape-based statistical modeling (SpineAnalyzer, Optasia Medical, Cheadle, UK).MethodsTwo non-radiologists independently assessed vertebral morphometry from CT lateral scout views at two time points in 96 subjects (50 men, 46 women, 70.3 ± 8.9 years) selected from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring and Third Generation Multi-Detector CT Study. VFxs were classified based solely on morphometry measurements using Genant's criteria. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), root mean squared coefficient of variation (RMS CV) and kappa (k) statistics were used to assess reliability.ResultsWe analyzed 1,246 vertebrae in 96 subjects. The analysis time averaged 5.4 ± 1.7 min per subject (range, 3.2–9.1 min). Intra-and inter-reader ICCs for vertebral heights were excellent (>0.95) for all vertebral levels combined. Intra-and inter-reader RMS CV for height measurements ranged from 2.5% to 3.9% and 3.3% to 4.4%, respectively. Reliability of vertebral height ratios was good to fair. Based on morphometry measurements alone, readers A and B identified 51–52 and 46–59 subjects with at least one prevalent VFx, respectively, and there was a good intra-and inter-reader agreement (k = 0.59–0.69) for VFx identification.ConclusionsSemi-automated quantitative vertebral morphometry measurements from CT lateral scout views are convenient and reproducible, and may facilitate assessment of VFx.

[1]  M. Jergas,et al.  Accurate assessment of precision errors: How to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques , 2005, Osteoporosis International.

[2]  Alan Brett,et al.  Development of a Clinical Workflow Tool to Enhance the Detection of Vertebral Fractures: Accuracy and Precision Evaluation , 2009, Spine.

[3]  Tim Cootes,et al.  Detection of vertebral fractures in DXA VFA images using statistical models of appearance and a semi-automatic segmentation , 2010, Osteoporosis International.

[4]  S. Achenbach,et al.  Calcium Concentration of Individual Coronary Calcified Plaques as Measured by Multidetector Row Computed Tomography , 2005, Circulation.

[5]  R. Whitehouse,et al.  Under-reporting of osteoporotic vertebral fractures on computed tomography. , 2009, European journal of radiology.

[6]  S. Gehlbach,et al.  Recognition of Vertebral Fracture in a Clinical Setting , 2000, Osteoporosis International.

[7]  T. Schnitzer,et al.  Pins and plaster aren't enough: a call for the evaluation and treatment of patients with osteoporotic fractures. , 2003, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[8]  M. Nevitt,et al.  Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique , 1993, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[9]  Richard Eastell,et al.  Algorithm‐Based Qualitative and Semiquantitative Identification of Prevalent Vertebral Fracture: Agreement Between Different Readers, Imaging Modalities, and Diagnostic Approaches , 2007, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[10]  Robert Epstein,et al.  Comparison of methods for defining prevalent vertebral deformities: The study of osteoporotic fractures , 1995, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[11]  E K Woo,et al.  Incidental vertebral fractures on multidetector CT images of the chest: prevalence and recognition. , 2008, Clinical radiology.

[12]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Mortality following the diagnosis of a vertebral compression fracture in the Medicare population. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[13]  M. Roberts,et al.  Quantitative vertebral fracture detection on DXA images using shape and appearance models. , 2007, Academic radiology.

[14]  T. Abbott,et al.  Patients with Prior Fractures Have an Increased Risk of Future Fractures: A Summary of the Literature and Statistical Synthesis , 2000, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[15]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[16]  L. Nesti,et al.  Osteoporosis and vertebral compression fractures-continued missed opportunities. , 2008, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[17]  Caroline,et al.  Patterns of Abdominal Fat Distribution: The Framingham Heart Study , 2008 .

[18]  C. Roux,et al.  Méthodes radiographiques d’évaluation des fractures vertébrales ostéoporotiques ☆ , 2009 .

[19]  D. Kiel,et al.  Vertebral deformity, back symptoms, and functional limitations among older women: The Framingham Study , 2005, Osteoporosis International.

[20]  H. Genant,et al.  Underdiagnosis of Vertebral Fractures Is a Worldwide Problem: The IMPACT Study , 2004, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[21]  J. Fleiss,et al.  The measurement of interrater agreement , 2004 .

[22]  G. M. Blake,et al.  Morphometric X-ray Absorptiometry and Morphometric Radiography of the Spine: A Comparison of Analysis Precision in Normal and Osteoporotic Subjects , 1999, Osteoporosis International.

[23]  L M Hurxthal,et al.  Measurement of anterior vertebral compressions and biconcave vertebrae. , 1968, The American journal of roentgenology, radium therapy, and nuclear medicine.

[24]  O Johnell,et al.  A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. , 2004, Bone.

[25]  Timothy F. Cootes,et al.  Active Appearance Models , 2001, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[26]  Ian Colman,et al.  Incidental vertebral fractures discovered with chest radiography in the emergency department: prevalence, recognition, and osteoporosis management in a cohort of elderly patients. , 2005, Archives of internal medicine.

[27]  Jacques P. Brown,et al.  Recognizing and reporting vertebral fractures: reducing the risk of future osteoporotic fractures. , 2007, Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes.

[28]  G. Dinant,et al.  Risk of new clinical fractures within 2 years following a fracture , 2005, Osteoporosis International.

[29]  C. Wu,et al.  Comparison of semiquantitative and quantitative techniques for the assessment of prevalent and incident vertebral fractures , 2005, Osteoporosis International.

[30]  S. Cummings,et al.  Comparison of semiquantitative visual and quantitative morphometric assessment of prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in osteoporosis , 1996 .

[31]  C. Wu,et al.  Vertebral Fracture Assessment using the Lateral Scoutview of Computed Tomography in Comparison with Radiographs , 1998, Osteoporosis International.

[32]  D. Kiel,et al.  Reliability of vertebral fracture assessment using multidetector CT lateral scout views: the Framingham Osteoporosis Study , 2011, Osteoporosis International.

[33]  L. Melton,et al.  Adverse Outcomes of Osteoporotic Fractures in the General Population , 2003, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[34]  C. Roux,et al.  Radiographic methods for evaluating osteoporotic vertebral fractures. , 2009, Joint, bone, spine : revue du rhumatisme.

[35]  F. Palmieri,et al.  Assessment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures using specialized workflow software for 6-point morphometry. , 2009, European journal of radiology.

[36]  R. Eastell,et al.  Comparison of methods for the visual identification of prevalent vertebral fracture in osteoporosis , 2004, Osteoporosis International.

[37]  R. Eastell,et al.  Short-term Precision for Morphometric X-ray Absorptiometry , 2001, Osteoporosis International.