Bone densitometry: an update

Radiology of Osteoporosis

The radiologist has a number of roles not only in diagnosing but also in treating osteoporosis. Radiologists diagnose fragility fractures with all imaging modalities, which includes magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrating radiologically occult insufficiency fractures, but also lateral chest radiographs showing asymptomatic vertebral fractures. In particular MRI fragility fractures may have a nonspecific appearance and the radiologists needs to be familiar with the typical locations and findings, to differentiate these fractures from neoplastic lesions. It should be noted that radiologists do not simply need to diagnose fractures related to osteoporosis but also to diagnose those fractures which are complications of osteoporosis related pharmacotherapy. In addition to using standard radiological techniques radiologists also use dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and quantitative computed tomography (QCT) to quantitatively assess bone mineral density for diagnosing osteoporosis or osteopenia as well as to monitor therapy. DXA measurements of the femoral neck are also used to calculate osteoporotic fracture risk based on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) score, which is universally available. Some of the new technologies such as high-resolution peripheral computed tomography (HR-pQCT) and MR spectroscopy allow assessment of bone architecture and bone marrow composition to characterize fracture risk. Finally radiologists are also involved in the therapy of osteoporotic fractures by using vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, and sacroplasty. This review article will focus on standard techniques and new concepts in diagnosing and managing osteoporosis.

Dose absorption in lumbar and femoral dual energy X-ray absorptiometry examinations using three different scan modalities: an anthropomorphic phantom study

The aim of this study was to measure the effective dose on an anthropomorphic phantom undergoing lumbar and femoral dual energy X-ray absorption (DXA) examinations, using 3 different scan modalities (fast-array [FA], array [A], high-definition [HD]), and assess the differences in the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer due to radiation. An anthropomorphic phantom was used. Thermoluminescent dosimeters were placed over 12 anatomic phantom regions and outside the room (to measure background radiation). Fifty scans on the femur and spine were performed for each mode. The dose relative to a single DXA scan for each dosimeter was measured (mean over the 50 scans) and the background radiation was then subtracted. The equivalent dose per organ was obtained. The total body effective dose was calculated by adding the equivalent doses. We estimated the lifetime dose absorption and LAR for cancer for a male and a female patient undergoing 36 DXA studies (18 lumbar, 18 femoral) every 21 months for 32 years. The effective dose for lumbar scans was FA = 17.79 μSv, A = 32.88 μSv, HD = 31.08 μSv; for femoral scans, FA = 5.29 μSv, A = 9.55 μSv, HD = 7.54 μSv. LAR estimation showed a minimal increase in cancer risk (range 4.55 × 10⁻⁴% [FA, femoral, male] to 4.02 × 10⁻³% [A, lumbar, female]). The lifetime dose absorption and LAR for cancer for a male and a female patient undergoing 36 DXA studies (18 lumbar, 18 femoral) every 21 months for 32 years were 0.756 mSv, 3.82 × 10(-3)% and 0.756 mSv, 5.11 × 10⁻³%, respectively. DXA examinations cause radiation levels that are comparable to the background radiation. Regardless of the scan modality or the anatomic site, a patient undergoing DXA scans for a lifetime has a negligible increased risk of developing cancer.

Osteoporosis imaging: state of the art and advanced imaging

Osteoporosis is becoming an increasingly important public health issue, and effective treatments to prevent fragility fractures are available. Osteoporosis imaging is of critical importance in identifying individuals at risk for fractures who would require pharmacotherapy to reduce fracture risk and also in monitoring response to treatment. Dual x-ray absorptiometry is currently the state-of-the-art technique to measure bone mineral density and to diagnose osteoporosis according to the World Health Organization guidelines. Motivated by a 2000 National Institutes of Health consensus conference, substantial research efforts have focused on assessing bone quality by using advanced imaging techniques. Among these techniques aimed at better characterizing fracture risk and treatment effects, high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (CT) currently plays a central role, and a large number of recent studies have used this technique to study trabecular and cortical bone architecture. Other techniques to analyze bone quality include multidetector CT, magnetic resonance imaging, and quantitative ultrasonography. In addition to quantitative imaging techniques measuring bone density and quality, imaging needs to be used to diagnose prevalent osteoporotic fractures, such as spine fractures on chest radiographs and sagittal multidetector CT reconstructions. Radiologists need to be sensitized to the fact that the presence of fragility fractures will alter patient care, and these fractures need to be described in the report. This review article covers state-of-the-art imaging techniques to measure bone mineral density, describes novel techniques to study bone quality, and focuses on how standard imaging techniques should be used to diagnose prevalent osteoporotic fractures.

Osteoporosis imaging: state of the art and advanced imaging

Osteoporosis is becoming an increasingly important public health issue, and effective treatments to prevent fragility fractures are available. Osteoporosis imaging is of critical importance in identifying individuals at risk for fractures who would require pharmacotherapy to reduce fracture risk and also in monitoring response to treatment. Dual x-ray absorptiometry is currently the state-of-the-art technique to measure bone mineral density and to diagnose osteoporosis according to the World Health Organization guidelines. Motivated by a 2000 National Institutes of Health consensus conference, substantial research efforts have focused on assessing bone quality by using advanced imaging techniques. Among these techniques aimed at better characterizing fracture risk and treatment effects, high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (CT) currently plays a central role, and a large number of recent studies have used this technique to study trabecular and cortical bone architecture. Other techniques to analyze bone quality include multidetector CT, magnetic resonance imaging, and quantitative ultrasonography. In addition to quantitative imaging techniques measuring bone density and quality, imaging needs to be used to diagnose prevalent osteoporotic fractures, such as spine fractures on chest radiographs and sagittal multidetector CT reconstructions. Radiologists need to be sensitized to the fact that the presence of fragility fractures will alter patient care, and these fractures need to be described in the report. This review article covers state-of-the-art imaging techniques to measure bone mineral density, describes novel techniques to study bone quality, and focuses on how standard imaging techniques should be used to diagnose prevalent osteoporotic fractures.

Evaluation of the bone status in high-level cyclists

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bone status in highly trained professional cyclists subjected to regular training and tough competitions. Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured at different regions of interest by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and main biological parameters related to bone metabolism were obtained in 29 cyclists. Lumbar BMD was 0.94 ± 0.01g/cm(2) (Z-score=-1.28 ± 0.07), and 1 cyclist out of 4 had an abnormally low value (Z-score <-2). The mean Z-score at the total femoral site was -1.22 ± 0.21, and 45% of athletes had an Z-score of <-2. All femoral neck BMD values were within normal boundaries. The lowest BMD Z-score was measured at the midradius or 1/3 proximal site with a mean Z-score of -1.77 ± 0.78, but only 3 cyclists (15%) had Z-scores <-2. Biochemical parameters of bone formation (serum osteocalcin and alkaline phosphatase) were normal. Three cyclists had low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. Blood testosterone and thyroid stimulating hormone were in the normal range. Insulin-like growth factor 1 levels were in the normal range; however, a significant inverse correlation was found with lumbar BMD (r=0.495; p=0.003). We confirm that cycling has no positive effect on BMD, BMD being often lower than in normal controls at the lumbar site; femoral BMD is less concerned. The absence of beneficial changes at the spine can be explained by biomechanical conditions related to the cyclists' position, reducing loading strains. It is necessary to pay greater attention to the bone status of high-level athletes to prevent an increased risk of fractures.

Monitoring strontium ranelate therapy in patients with osteoporosis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to review the monitoring of strontium ranelate osteoporosis therapy.

METHODS

The method used in this study was comprehensive literature review with clinical perspectives.

RESULTS

Changes in bone turnover markers (BTM) or bone mineral density (BMD) have been documented in osteoporosis clinical trials. However, neither BMD nor BTM changes fully explain the observed fracture risk reduction in treated patients. If changes in BMD or BTM on therapy would be easily discernable in individual patients, and were strongly associated with fracture risk reduction, monitoring individuals would be more useful. BMD changes in patients on strontium ranelate are of a greater magnitude and hence can be easily determined in an individual patient. In addition, there exists a better correlation between fracture risk reduction and increases in BMD.

CONCLUSIONS

The strong correlation between measured BMD increases and fracture risk reduction in patients on strontium ranelate therapy will be of clinical benefit to physicians wishing to evaluate both treatment persistence and fracture risk reduction.

Bone mass and architecture determination: state of the art

Bone fracture occurs when the bone strength (i.e. the ability of the bone to resist a force) is less than the force applied to the bone. In the elderly, falls represent the more severe forces applied to bone. Bone density is a good marker of bone strength, and has been used widely in this respect. Nevertheless, many aspects of bone strength cannot be explained by bone density alone. For this reason there has been increasing interest in studying architectural parameters of bone, beyond bone density, which may affect bone strength. Macro-architectural parameters include e.g. bone size and geometry assessed with techniques such as radiography, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), peripheral quantitative computed tomography (QCT), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Micro-architectural parameters include fine cortical and trabecular structural detail which can be evaluated using high-resolution imaging techniques such as multidetector CT, MRI, and high-resolution peripheral QCT. These techniques are providing a great deal of new information on the physiological architectural responses of bone to aging, weightlessness, and treatment. This will ultimately lead to the prediction of fracture risk being improved through a combined assessment of bone density and architectural parameters.

[Clinical presentation and diagnosis of osteoporosis and osteomalacia]

Osteoporosis and osteomalacia are systemic metabolic bone diseases characterized by an impaired composition, architecture, and quality of bone. In light of the demographic development and the recent use of sensitive tests, both diseases are increasingly diagnosed. Subjects at high risk include elderly, chronically hospitalized patients, and nursing home residents. Patients with gastrointestinal, rheumatologic and endocrine disorders are also at risk for the development of osteoporosis or osteomalacia. In this review, we will discuss practical aspects of the clinical presentation and the diagnosis of osteoporosis and osteomalacia.

Body composition and bone density in Canadian White and Aboriginal women: the First Nations Bone Health Study

Ethnic variation in soft tissue composition may contribute to observed ethnic differences in bone mineral density (BMD). This analysis was performed to determine whether ethnic differences in body composition affect differences in BMD between Canadian White and Aboriginal women. An age-stratified population-based sample of 206 Aboriginal women and 177 White women underwent multisite bone density measurements and total body soft tissue composition analysis. In univariate analyses, each kg of additional lean mass was associated with a greater increase in BMD than an equal amount of fat mass (p<.01). When models simultaneously evaluated both soft tissue measurements, lean mass (but not fat mass) was positively correlated with BMD at all measurement sites (p<.001). Aboriginal women had significantly lower weight-adjusted BMD than White women for two sites (calcaneus, p = .019; total body, p = .026) and lower BMI-adjusted for BMD three sites (calcaneus, p = .0076; distal forearm, p = .047; total body, p = .022). The ratio of lean mass to fat mass was lower in Aboriginal than White women (p<.001). When BMD was adjusted for body composition variables no significant difference was seen between Aboriginal and White women. Apparent ethnic differences in weight- and BMI-adjusted BMD between Canadian White and Aboriginal women were explained by a lower ratio of lean mass to fat mass in Aboriginal women, combined with a smaller increment in BMD from fat mass versus lean mass in both populations.

Absolute fracture risk reporting in clinical practice: a physician-centered survey

Non-expert clinical practitioners who had received bone density reports based on 10-year absolute fracture risk were surveyed to determine their response to this new system. Absolute fracture risk reporting was well received and was strongly preferred to traditional T-score-based reporting. Non-specialist physicians were particularly supportive of risk-based bone mineral density (BMD) reporting.

INTRODUCTION

Absolute risk estimation is preferable to risk categorization based upon BMD alone. The objective of this study was to specifically assess the response of non-expert clinical practitioners to this approach.

METHODS

In January 2006, the Province of Manitoba, Canada, started reporting 10-year osteoporotic fracture risks for patients aged 50 years and older based on the hip T-score, gender, age, and multiple clinical risk factors. In May 2006 and October 2006, a brief anonymous survey was sent to all physicians who had requested a BMD test during 2005 and 206 responses were received.

RESULTS

When asked whether the report contained the information needed to manage patients, the mean score for the absolute fracture risk report was higher than for the T-score-based report (p<0.0001). When asked whether the report was easy to understand, the mean score for the absolute fracture risk report was again higher than for the T-score-based report (p<0.0001). Non-specialists gave a higher ranking than specialists to the absolute fracture risk information (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Absolute fracture risk reporting is well-received by physicians and is strongly preferred to traditional T-score-based reporting. Non-specialist physicians are particularly supportive of risk-based BMD reporting.

High prevalence of early-onset osteopenia/osteoporosis after allogeneic stem cell transplantation and improvement after bisphosphonate therapy

Osteopenia/osteoporosis (O/O) has been associated with allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT). We retrospectively reviewed 102 patients undergoing a first alloSCT from 2000 to 2005 at our center to evaluate the prevalence of O/O < or =6 and >6 months post-alloSCT. Fifty-six patients did not have a dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan following alloSCT. Approximately half (n=13/27) of those with a first DXA scan < or =6 months post-alloSCT had O/O and a similar rate (n=9/19) was seen in those with a first DXA scan >6 months. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the normal and O/O groups. The dual femur (DF) appeared to be more vulnerable to alloSCT-induced bone mineral density (BMD) loss than the lumbar spine (LS), regardless of screening time. O/O patients were treated with bisphosphonates and 41% had a repeat DXA scan post-treatment. No patient developed jaw osteonecrosis and significant BMD improvement was seen at the LS (mean BMD, 1.03+/-0.13 vs 1.08+/-0.12, P=0.004) but not the DF (mean BMD, 0.84+/-0.06 vs 0.85+/-0.08, P=0.29), indicating BMD loss at the DF is more resistant than the LS to antiresorptive therapy. Our results demonstrate that O/O is an early and late complication post-alloSCT and bisphosphonate treatment reverses BMD loss at the LS.