Estimating Lumbar Spine Least Significant Change for Fewer than Four Vertebrae: The Manitoba BMD Registry

Bone Mineral Density Monitoring in Contiguous versus Non-Contiguous Lumbar Vertebrae: The Manitoba BMD Registry

INTRODUCTION

Only change in bone mineral density (BMD) on repeat DXA that exceeds the 95% least significant change (LSC) should be considered clinically meaningful. Frequently lumbar spine DXA must be reported after omitting vertebrae with localized structural artifact, which reduces measurement precision. Previous reports have raised concerns of higher least significant change (LSC) when spine BMD is based on non-contiguous rather than contiguous vertebrae. The current study was performed to compare lumbar spine LSC and BMD response to intervening anti-osteoporosis medication use from non-contiguous versus contiguous vertebrae.

METHODOLOGY

LSCs for lumbar spine DXA based on L1-L4 and all combinations of non-contiguous and contiguous vertebrae were calculated using 879 scan-pairs from the Manitoba BMD Program. We compared BMD change from these regions, overall and in relation to intervening anti-osteoporosis medication use, in 11,722 patients who had 2 DXA examinations.

RESULTS

LSCs were slightly greater when calculated from combinations of fewer than 4 vertebrae, but there was no meaningful difference between contiguous versus non-contiguous vertebrae. There were consistently high correlations between lumbar spine BMD change from L1-L4 and all combinations of continuous and non-contiguous vertebrae (all Pearson r≥ 0.9, p<0.001). Percentage changes in spine BMD and the fraction with treatment-concordant change exceeding the LSC were similar using contiguous or non-contiguous vertebrae.

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar spine BMD change can be assessed from 2 or 3 non-contiguous vertebrae when clinically necessary, and precision in such cases is similar to using contiguous vertebrae. Non-contiguous vertebrae can detect treatment-concordant changes similar in spine BMD to contiguous vertebrae.

Assessing Change in Spine Bone Density from Different Numbers and Combinations of Lumbar Vertebrae: The Manitoba BMD Registry

INTRODUCTION

Change in bone mineral density (BMD) is considered significant when it exceeds the 95 % least significant change (LSC) derived from that facility's precision study. The lumbar spine is often affected by structural artifact such that not all four lumbar vertebrae are evaluable. Guidelines suggest using a site-matched LSC when omitting vertebrae from the BMD measurement. The current study describes significant BMD change related to intervening anti-osteoporosis treatment for different numbers and combinations of lumbar vertebrae using site-matched LSC values.

METHODOLOGY

We identified 10,526 untreated adult women mean age 59.6 years with baseline and repeat spine BMD testing (mean interval 4.7 years) where all 4 lumbar vertebrae were evaluable. Change in spine BMD for different combinations of lumbar vertebrae was assessed in relation to intervening anti-resorptive treatment, contrasting women with high treatment exposure (medication possession ratio, MPR ≥ 0.8) versus women who remained untreated. Site-matched LSC values were derived from 879 test-retest precision measurements.

RESULTS

There was consistent linear trend between increasing MPR and BMD change exceeding the LSC for all lumbar vertebral combinations, positive with BMD increase and negative with BMD decrease (all p-trend <0.001). In the high treatment exposure group, mean percent increases in spine BMD were similar for all vertebral combinations, from L1-4 to a single vertebra. In untreated women, mean percent decreases in spine BMD were also similar for all vertebral combinations. The net treatment response (proportion of women with treatment-concordant changes minus proportion with treatment-discordant changes exceeding the LSC) was 29.7 % for 4 vertebrae, 27.5-30.0 % for 3 vertebrae, 22.4-28.5 % for 2 vertebrae, and 18.1-21.9 % for a single vertebra.

CONCLUSIONS

All numbers and combinations of lumbar vertebrae, when used in conjunction with site-matched LSC values, can provide clinically meaningful follow-up in treated and untreated patients, even when spine BMD is based on a single vertebral body.

Fracture Risk Associated with Different Numbers and Combinations of Lumbar Vertebrae: The Manitoba BMD Registry

Bone mineral density (BMD) is widely used for assessment of fracture risk. For the lumbar spine, BMD is typically measured from L1-L4 as it provides the largest area for assessment with the best measurement precision. Structural artifact often confounds spine BMD in clinical practice, and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) recommends removing vertebrae with artifact when reporting spine BMD. In its most recent position statements, the ISCD recommended against the use of a single vertebra when reporting spine BMD but stated that further studies should be done. The current analysis was performed to compare the performance of BMD from different numbers and combination of vertebral levels on fracture prediction in a large clinical registry of DXA tests for the Province of Manitoba, Canada. The study population comprised 39,727 individuals aged 40 years and older (mean age 62.7 years, 91.0 % female) with baseline DXA after excluding those with evidence of structural artifact. Mean follow-up for ascertaining fracture outcomes was 8.7 years. Area under the curve (AUC) for incident fracture risk stratification was statistically significant regardless of the BMD measurement site or fracture outcome. AUC differences with the various numbers and combinations of vertebral levels including a single vertebral body were small (less than or equal to 0.01). More substantial AUC differences were seen for femoral neck and total hip BMD versus L1-L4 BMD, approaching 0.1 for hip fracture stratification. In summary, we found that using combinations of fewer than 4 vertebrae including individual lumbar vertebrae predicted incident fractures. Importantly, differences between these different combinations were small when compared with L1-L4. Spine BMD was a better predictor of incident spine fracture compared to the hip, whereas the hip was better for hip fracture and overall fracture prediction.