Precision of volumetric assessment of proximal femur microarchitecture from high-resolution 3T MRI

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 $$56\pm 13$$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 ($$T$$T), bone volume ($$B$$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 ($$p< 0.05$$p<0.05) when measuring bone volume, $$B$$B. $$B$$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.

[1]  O. Johnell,et al.  Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures , 1996 .

[2]  H. Song,et al.  Cancellous bone volume and structure in the forearm: noninvasive assessment with MR microimaging and image processing. , 1998, Radiology.

[3]  A. Tosteson,et al.  Incidence and Economic Burden of Osteoporosis‐Related Fractures in the United States, 2005–2025 , 2007, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[4]  Ravinder R Regatte,et al.  Feasibility of three‐dimensional MRI of proximal femur microarchitecture at 3 tesla using 26 receive elements without and with parallel imaging , 2014, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[5]  Thomas Baum,et al.  Generation of an atlas of the proximal femur and its application to trabecular bone analysis , 2011, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[6]  Harry K. Genant,et al.  Consensus development conference: diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. , 1993, The American journal of medicine.

[7]  Jeremy F Magland,et al.  Retrospective 3D registration of trabecular bone MR images for longitudinal studies , 2009, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[8]  Roland Krug,et al.  Feasibility of in vivo structural analysis of high-resolution magnetic resonance images of the proximal femur , 2005, Osteoporosis International.

[9]  S. Majumdar,et al.  In Vivo High Resolution MRI of the Calcaneus: Differences in Trabecular Structure in Osteoporosis Patients , 1998, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[10]  S. Gabriel,et al.  Mortality, Disability, and Nursing Home Use for Persons with and without Hip Fracture: A Population‐Based Study , 2002, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[11]  Claus Christiansen,et al.  Consensus development conference: Prophylaxis and treatment of osteoporosis , 2005, Osteoporosis International.

[12]  Nelson B. Watts,et al.  Fundamentals and pitfalls of bone densitometry using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) , 2004, Osteoporosis International.

[13]  Jeremy F Magland,et al.  Computational biomechanics of the distal tibia from high-resolution MR and micro-CT images. , 2010, Bone.

[14]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Trabecular Bone Architecture in the Distal Radius Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Subjects with Fractures of the Proximal Femur , 1999, Osteoporosis International.

[15]  A. Hofman,et al.  Fracture incidence and association with bone mineral density in elderly men and women: the Rotterdam Study. , 2004, Bone.

[16]  Thomas M Link,et al.  osteoporosis imaging : State of the Art and Advanced Imaging 1 , 2022 .

[17]  Gregory Chang,et al.  MRI of the hip at 7T: Feasibility of bone microarchitecture, high‐resolution cartilage, and clinical imaging , 2014, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[18]  Dwight G. Nishimura,et al.  Principles of magnetic resonance imaging , 2010 .