Quantitative computed tomography discriminates between postmenopausal women with low spine bone mineral density with vertebral fractures and those with low spine bone mineral density only:​ the SHATTER study

Paggiosi, M. A.; Debono, M.; Walsh, J. S.; Peel, N. F. A.; Eastell, R.

Affiliations

¹The Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, Department of Oncology and Metabolism, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

²Department of Endocrinology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK

³The MRC-Arthritis Research UK Centre for Integrated Research into Musculoskeletal Ageing (CIMA), Liverpool, UK

⁴The Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, Metabolic Bone Centre, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK

Abstract and keywords

Summary: Lumbar spine volumetric bone mineral density (BMD) measured using quantitative computed tomography (QCT) can discriminate between postmenopausal women with low areal BMD with and without vertebral fractures. QCT provides a 3D measure of BMD, excludes the vertebral posterior elements and accounts for bone size. This knowledge could contribute to effective treatment targeting of patients with low BMD.

Introduction: We evaluated the ability of lumbar spine bone mineral apparent density (BMAD), trabecular bone score (TBS) and volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) to discriminate between postmenopausal women with low areal bone mineral density (aBMD) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with and without vertebral fractures. The discriminatory ability of lumbar spine aBMD was compared with that of BMAD, TBS and vBMD.

Methods: We studied three groups of postmenopausal women, i.e. group 1, aBMD T-score < − 1.0 and ≥ 1 vertebral fracture (n = 39); group 2, aBMD T-score < − 1.0 and no vertebral fracture, age- and aBMD-matched to group 1 (n = 34); group 3, aBMD score > − 1 and no vertebral fracture, age-matched to group 1 (n = 37). Lumbar spine aBMD was measured by DXA. BMAD was calculated using the DXA scan results. TBS was derived following DXA scan image reanalysis. Lumbar spine vBMD was assessed by quantitative computed tomography and Mindways Pro software. Differences in variables between groups 1, 2 and 3 were examined using general linear univariate modelling approaches. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was calculated for BMAD, TBS and vBMD to determine the ability of lumbar spine measurement variables to discriminate between group 1 and group 2. A comparison of ROCs was performed.

Results: Lumbar spine BMAD and TBS measurement variables were similar for groups 1 and 2. However, vBMD was significantly lower in group 1 and could discriminate between those women with low aBMD with (group 1) and without vertebral fractures (group 2).

Conclusions: We conclude that lumbar spine vBMD may discriminate well between postmenopausal women with low aBMD with and without vertebral fractures as it provides a 3D measure of bone mineral density, excludes the posterior elements of the vertebrae and takes into account bone size. A unique feature of the SHATTER study is that groups 1 and 2 were matched for aBMD, thus our study findings are independent of aBMD. Furthermore, we observed that neither BMAD nor TBS could distinguish between women with low aBMD with and without vertebral fractures. The knowledge gained from the SHATTER study will influence clinical and therapeutic decision-making, thereby optimising the care of patients with and without vertebral and other fragility fractures.

Keywords: Discriminatory ability; Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA); Quantitative computed tomography (QCT); SHATTER study; Vertebral fracture

Links

DOI: 10.1007/s00198-020-05317-z

PubMed: 31993717

WoS: 000515613300001

History

Received: 2019-08-07

Accepted: 2020-01-23

Online: 2020-01-28

Cited Works (16)

Year	Entry
1994	Kanis JA, Melton LJ III, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltaev N. The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. August 1994;9(8):1137-1141.
1987	Parfitt AM. Trabecular bone architecture in the pathogenesis and prevention of fracture. Am J Med. January 26, 1987;82(suppl 1B):68-72.
2001	van Staa TP, Dennison EM, Leufkens HGM, Cooper C. Epidemiology of fractures in England and Wales. Bone. January 2001;29(6):517-522.
1992	Carter DR, Bouxsein ML, Marcus R. New approaches for interpreting projected bone densitometry data. J Bone Miner Res. February 1992;7(2):137-145.
2000	Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Jonsson B, De Laet C, Dawson A. Risk of hip fracture according to the World Health Organization criteria for osteopenia and osteoporosis. Bone. November 2000;27(5):585-590.
2015	Bliuc D, Alarkawi D, Nguyen TV, Eisman JA, Center JR. Risk of subsequent fractures and mortality in elderly women and men with fragility fractures with and without osteoporotic bone density: the Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study. J Bone Miner Res. April 2015;30(4):637-646.
2000	Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, Abbott TA III, Berger M. Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res. April 2000;15(4):721-739.
1992	Parfitt AM. Implications of architecture for the pathogenesis and prevention of vertebral fracture. Bone. 1992;13(suppl 2):S41-S47.
2014	Iki M, Tamaki J, Kadowaki E, Sato Y, Dongmei N, Winzenrieth R, Kagamimori S, Kagawa Y, Yoneshima H. Trabecular bone score (TBS) predicts vertebral fractures in Japanese women over 10 years independently of bone density and prevalent vertebral deformity: the Japanese population-based osteoporosis (JPOS) cohort study. J Bone Miner Res. February 2014;29(2):399-407.
1993	Mosekilde L. Vertebral structure and strength in vivo and in vitro. Calcif Tiss Int. February 1993;53(suppl 1):S121-S126.
1997	Grampp S, Genant HK, Mathur A, Lang P, Jergas M, Takada M, Glüer C-C, Lu Y, Chavez M. Comparisons of noninvasive bone mineral measurements in assessing age-related loss, fracture discrimination, and diagnostic classification. J Bone Miner Res. May 1997;12(5):697-711.
2001	Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C, Hanley DA, Barton I, Broy SB, Licata A, Benhamou L, Geusens P, Flowers K, Stracke H, Seeman E. Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA. January 17, 2001;285(6):320-323.
2017	Ballane G, Cauley JA, Luckey MM, Fuleihan GE-H. Worldwide prevalence and incidence of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int. May 2017;28(5):1531-1542.
2011	Wolfram U, Wilke H-J, Zysset PK. Damage accumulation in vertebral trabecular bone depends on loading mode and direction. J Biomech. April 7, 2011;44(7):1164-1169.
1999	Black DM, Arden NK, Palermo L, Pearson J, Cummings SR; Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Prevalent vertebral deformities predict hip fractures and new vertebral deformities but not wrist fractures. J Bone Miner Res. May 1999;14(5):821-828.
2007	Melton LJ III, Riggs BL, Keaveny TM, Achenbach SJ, Hoffmann PF, Camp JJ, Rouleau PA, Bouxsein ML, Amin S, Atkinson EJ, Robb RA, Khosla S. Structural determinants of vertebral fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res. December 2007;22(12):1885-1892.

Cited By (1)

Year	Entry
2023	Lin J, Liu Z, Fu G, Zhang H, Chen C, Qi H, Jiang K, Zhang C, Ma C, Yang K, Wang C, Tan B, Zhu Q, Ding Y, Li C, Zheng Q, Cai D, Lu WW. Distribution of bone voids in the thoracolumbar spine in Chinese adults with and without osteoporosis: a cross-sectional multi-center study based on 464 vertebrae. Bone. July 2023;172:116749.