FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3043620090> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3043620090 endingPage "510" @default.
• W3043620090 startingPage "509" @default.
• W3043620090 abstract "HomeRadiologyVol. 296, No. 3 PreviousNext Reviews and CommentaryFree AccessEditorialOpportunistic Osteoporosis Screening with Cardiac CT: Can We Predict Future Fractures?Miriam A. Bredella Miriam A. Bredella Author AffiliationsFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St, Yawkey 6E, Boston, MA 02114.Address correspondence to the author (e-mail: [email protected]).Miriam A. Bredella Published Online:Jul 14 2020https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020202374MoreSectionsPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In See also the article by Therkildsen et al in this issue.Dr Miriam A. Bredella is professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of the Department of Radiology at the Massachusetts General Hospital. She directs the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Harvard KL2 Program and serves on the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Award Program Steering Committee. She is a NIH-funded investigator on bone and body composition assessment across the weight spectrum, with special focus on the bone-fat connection. She is the deputy editor of the musculoskeletal imaging section for Radiology.Download as PowerPointOpen in Image Viewer Osteoporosis is a prevalent disease that is characterized by low bone mineral density (BMD) and skeletal fragility, resulting in an increased risk of fractures. Osteoporotic fractures are a major public health threat to millions of Americans and are associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and decreased quality of life. Moreover, the financial burden of osteoporosis is substantial, with annual costs ranging from $17 billion to $20 billion. Because of our aging population, the prevalence of osteoporosis and the number of osteoporotic fractures are expected to increase. However, despite the clinical significance of osteoporotic fractures, the growing size of our elderly population, and the availability of effective treatments, osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated (1,2).Screening for osteoporosis is typically performed by using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). DXA is a planar imaging technique that assesses areal BMD and can be subject to artifact from degenerative changes, bowel contents, and arterial calcification. Almost half of patients with osteoporotic fractures have normal BMD at DXA. The majority of women and men who are eligible do not undergo osteoporosis screening, and many osteoporotic fractures occur in individuals who have never been screened (2,3). Therefore, it is of paramount importance to accurately identify individuals with osteoporosis to initiate therapy, with the goal to prevent future fractures. Given the low rates of osteoporosis screening by using DXA, the identification and validation of other techniques might increase the number of individuals undergoing screening.Quantitative CT, which can be performed with or without a calibration phantom, helps to assess true volumetric BMD and can overcome some of the limitations of DXA. In the United States, more than 80 million CT examinations are performed each year, many of which could be used to screen for osteoporosis without additional costs or radiation exposure. Several studies have validated abdominal or chest CT to perform so-called opportunistic osteoporosis screening (4,5). These studies focused on assessment of the lumbar spine and were able to help predict future osteoporotic fractures (6–8). CT examinations that are suitable for opportunistic osteoporosis screening are preferably performed in individuals at risk for osteoporosis without the administration of intravenous contrast material. One of those studies is CT colonography, for which there is overlap between individuals undergoing colorectal cancer screening and those at risk for low BMD. CT colonography is performed without contrast material. Therefore, several studies have successfully performed opportunistic osteoporosis screening by using CT colonography (5,7).Cardiac CT is a technique used to screen for coronary artery calcifications and to predict cardiovascular events. Noncontrast-enhanced scans are routinely obtained to estimate coronary artery calcium content, and cardiac CT is typically performed in individuals at risk for osteoporosis (9). Cardiac CT includes parts of the thoracic spine, which could be exploited for osteoporosis screening.In this issue of Radiology, Therkildsen and colleagues (10) conducted a prospective cohort study in patients undergoing cardiac CT to predict fractures. They studied 1487 participants of the Danish study of the Non-Invasive Testing in Coronary Artery Disease (Dan-NICAD) trial 1 who met indications for coronary CT angiography. Study participants were subsequently followed to determine any incident fracture and incident osteoporosis-related fractures. Cardiac CT was performed by using asynchronous calibration, in which a calibration phantom is imaged between participants and analysis is performed by using validated commercially available software. The origin of the main coronary artery was identified, and the thoracic vertebra at that level and the adjacent two caudal levels were used for analysis. Volumetric BMD (in milligrams per cubic centimeter) was calculated and categorized as normal (>120 mg/cm3), low (80–120 mg/cm3), and very low (<80 mg/cm3) by using recommendations for lumbar spine QCT published by the American College of Radiology.The application of lumbar spine quantitative CT thresholds to the thoracic spine is innovative but has not been validated. To determine the predictive value of thoracic quantitative CT, the authors followed participants for a median of 3 years to identify incident fractures. National Danish patient registries were accessed to identify any incident fractures and incident osteoporosis-related fractures by using the International Classification of Diseases (10th edition) codes. Moreover, demographics, comorbidities, medication use, exercise status, and tobacco use were recorded and controlled for in the statistical models.The study cohort was predominately White and included mostly postmenopausal women, with age ranging from 40 to 80 years (mean age, 57 years ± 9 [standard deviation]), a group at high risk for osteoporosis. During a median 3.1-year follow-up, 5.4% of participants were diagnosed with an incident fracture. The estimated annual rate of any fracture per BMD category was 3.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.1%, 5.4%) for very low BMD, 2.0% (95% CI: 1.4%, 2.7%) for low BMD, and 1.3% (95% CI: 0.9%, 1.9%) for normal BMD. In unadjusted and sex- and age-adjusted analyses, very low BMD was associated with a significantly increased risk of any fracture and very low and low BMD was associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis-related fractures (10).These results indicate that the thoracic spine CT protocol, with three thoracic vertebral bodies, can be used to assess volumetric BMD and lumbar BMD thresholds can be applied to the thoracic spine and these results can predict incident fractures. However, the application of lumbar BMD thresholds to the thoracic spine might not be optimal for fracture prediction. Therefore, the authors performed receiver operating characteristic curve analyses to determine thoracic spine BMD thresholds to predict incident fractures. A BMD cutoff of 102.6 mg/cm3 to predict any fracture resulted in a sensitivity of 54% (95% CI: 42%, 65%), a specificity of 66% (95% CI: 63%, 68%), and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.54, 0.65). For osteoporosis-related fractures, a BMD cutoff of 96.5 mg/cm3 resulted in a sensitivity of 65% (95% CI: 45%, 81%), a specificity of 73% (95% CI: 71%, 76%), and an AUC of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.78). Although the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were moderate to predict incident fractures, they were higher than when the BMD thresholds of the lumbar spine proposed by the American College of Radiology were used, which considers less than 80 mg/cm3 to be very low BMD. By using this threshold for any fracture, sensitivity was 21% (95% CI: 13%, 32%), specificity was 88% (95% CI: 87%, 90%), and AUC was 0.55 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.59); for osteoporosis-related fractures, sensitivity was 26% (95% CI: 12%, 45%), specificity was 88% (95% CI: 87%, 90%), and AUC was 0.57 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.65).Therkildsen and colleagues (10) expanded opportunistic osteoporosis screening by including the thoracic spine. Many patients undergo noncontrast CT of the chest for lung cancer screening or coronary artery calcifications and these CT examinations can be used to screen for osteoporosis and assess fracture risk. In addition to the use of thoracic spine CT for fracture prediction, strengths of the study include the large sample size and prospective study design. Use of established and new BMD thresholds to predict fracture risk will have clinical implications and can extend the application beyond research and into clinical practice.Limitations of the study include the predominately White, postmenopausal female population, which limits the applicability of the proposed thresholds to other populations. Moreover, the relatively small number of fractures makes the study more susceptible to type 2 errors. In addition, the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for predicting fractures by using established or new thresholds were moderate, suggesting that factors other than BMD contribute to fracture risk. A shortcoming is the use of patient registries to diagnose incident fractures because osteoporotic spine fractures often do not come to clinical attention and may not have been identified. The use of asynchronous calibration requires the use of a calibration phantom between examinations and special software for analysis, which limits wide applicability.In conclusion, Therkildsen and colleagues (10) expanded opportunistic osteoporosis screening to involve the thoracic spine. Established and new thresholds were able to predict incident fractures. I hope this study will ignite interest in using chest CT examinations performed for other purposes, such as lung cancer screening, for opportunistic osteoporosis screening and prediction of fractures in vulnerable populations.Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest: M.A.B. disclosed no relevant relationships.References1. Becker DJ, Kilgore ML, Morrisey MA. The societal burden of osteoporosis. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2010;12(3):186–191. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar2. Cosman F, Krege JH, Looker AC, et al. Spine fracture prevalence in a nationally representative sample of US women and men aged ³40 years: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013-2014. Osteoporos Int 2017;28(6):1857–1866. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3. Khosla S, Cauley JA, Compston J, et al. Addressing the Crisis in the Treatment of Osteoporosis: A Path Forward. J Bone Miner Res 2017;32(3):424–430. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4. Jang S, Graffy PM, Ziemlewicz TJ, Lee SJ, Summers RM, Pickhardt PJ. Opportunistic Osteoporosis Screening at Routine Abdominal and Thoracic CT: Normative L1 Trabecular Attenuation Values in More than 20 000 Adults. Radiology 2019;291(2):360–367. Link, Google Scholar5. Pickhardt PJ, Lee LJ, del Rio AM, et al. Simultaneous screening for osteoporosis at CT colonography: bone mineral density assessment using MDCT attenuation techniques compared with the DXA reference standard. J Bone Miner Res 2011;26(9):2194–2203. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6. Allaire BT, Lu D, Johannesdottir F, et al. Prediction of incident vertebral fracture using CT-based finite element analysis. Osteoporos Int 2019;30(2):323–331. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7. Fidler JL, Murthy NS, Khosla S, et al. Comprehensive Assessment of Osteoporosis and Bone Fragility with CT Colonography. Radiology 2016;278(1):172–180. Link, Google Scholar8. Lee SJ, Graffy PM, Zea RD, Ziemlewicz TJ, Pickhardt PJ. Future Osteoporotic Fracture Risk Related to Lumbar Vertebral Trabecular Attenuation Measured at Routine Body CT. J Bone Miner Res 2018;33(5):860–867. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar9. Sarwar A, Shaw LJ, Shapiro MD, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of absence of coronary artery calcification. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2009;2(6):675–688. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar10. Therkildsen J, Nissen L, Jørgensen HS, et al. Thoracic bone mineral density derived from cardiac CT is associated with greater fracture rate. Radiology 2020;296:499–508. Link, Google ScholarArticle HistoryReceived: May 23 2020Revision requested: June 5 2020Revision received: June 6 2020Accepted: June 9 2020Published online: July 14 2020Published in print: Sept 2020 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByAutomatic segmentation and radiomic texture analysis for osteoporosis screening using chest low-dose computed tomographyYung-ChiehChen, Yi-TienLi, Po-ChihKuo, Sho-JenCheng, Yi-HsiangChung, Duen-PangKuo, Cheng-YuChen2023 | European Radiology, Vol. 33, No. 7Assessment of Osteoporosis at the Lumbar Spine Using Ultrashort Echo Time Magnetization Transfer (UTE‐MT) MRIYuxuanLi, XiaolingLiang, JinLiu, YajunMa2023 | Journal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingLevel-Specific Volumetric BMD Threshold Values for the Prediction of Incident Vertebral Fractures Using Opportunistic QCT: A Case-Control StudyMichaelDieckmeyer, Maximilian ThomasLöffler, MalekEl Husseini, AnjanySekuboyina, BjoernMenze, NicoSollmann, MariaWostrack, ClausZimmer, ThomasBaum, Jan StefanKirschke2022 | Frontiers in Endocrinology, Vol. 13Accompanying This ArticleThoracic Bone Mineral Density Derived from Cardiac CT Is Associated with Greater Fracture RateJul 14 2020RadiologyRecommended Articles Thoracic Bone Mineral Density Derived from Cardiac CT Is Associated with Greater Fracture RateRadiology2020Volume: 296Issue: 3pp. 499-508Value-added Opportunistic CT Screening: State of the ArtRadiology2022Volume: 303Issue: 2pp. 241-254Opportunistic Screening at Abdominal CT: Use of Automated Body Composition Biomarkers for Added Cardiometabolic ValueRadioGraphics2021Volume: 41Issue: 2pp. 524-542Photon-counting CT: Scouting for Quantitative Imaging BiomarkersRadiology2020Volume: 298Issue: 1pp. 153-154Opportunistic Screening: Radiology Scientific Expert PanelRadiology2023Volume: 307Issue: 5See More RSNA Education Exhibits How To Obtain Additional Bone Mineral Density Information From The Low-dose Chest CT ExaminationDigital Posters2021Integration of AI Driven Image Analysis in Time Restricted Acute Trauma WorkupDigital Posters2020Computed Tomography Opportunistic Use: What are We Missing?Digital Posters2019 RSNA Case Collection Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis RSNA Case Collection2020Sacral Insufficiency FracturesRSNA Case Collection2021Calcified Spinal MeningiomaRSNA Case Collection2021 Vol. 296, No. 3 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download" @default.
• W3043620090 created "2020-07-23" @default.
• W3043620090 creator A5046207137 @default.
• W3043620090 date "2020-09-01" @default.
• W3043620090 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3043620090 title "Opportunistic Osteoporosis Screening with Cardiac CT: Can We Predict Future Fractures?" @default.
• W3043620090 cites W1758865557 @default.
• W3043620090 cites W1975081085 @default.
• W3043620090 cites W2006628712 @default.
• W3043620090 cites W2053760965 @default.
• W3043620090 cites W2565099834 @default.
• W3043620090 cites W2586579048 @default.
• W3043620090 cites W2782439977 @default.
• W3043620090 cites W2895965876 @default.
• W3043620090 cites W2923966376 @default.
• W3043620090 cites W3042279388 @default.
• W3043620090 doi "https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020202374" @default.
• W3043620090 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/7457941" @default.
• W3043620090 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32667255" @default.
• W3043620090 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W3043620090 type Work @default.
• W3043620090 sameAs 3043620090 @default.
• W3043620090 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W3043620090 countsByYear W30436200902022 @default.
• W3043620090 countsByYear W30436200902023 @default.
• W3043620090 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3043620090 hasAuthorship W3043620090A5046207137 @default.
• W3043620090 hasBestOaLocation W30436200902 @default.
• W3043620090 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3043620090 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W3043620090 hasConcept C2776541429 @default.
• W3043620090 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3043620090 hasConceptScore W3043620090C126322002 @default.
• W3043620090 hasConceptScore W3043620090C126838900 @default.
• W3043620090 hasConceptScore W3043620090C2776541429 @default.
• W3043620090 hasConceptScore W3043620090C71924100 @default.
• W3043620090 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W3043620090 hasLocation W30436200901 @default.
• W3043620090 hasLocation W30436200902 @default.
• W3043620090 hasOpenAccess W3043620090 @default.
• W3043620090 hasPrimaryLocation W30436200901 @default.
• W3043620090 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W3043620090 hasRelatedWork W2039318446 @default.
• W3043620090 hasRelatedWork W2049214470 @default.
• W3043620090 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W3043620090 hasRelatedWork W2358157500 @default.
• W3043620090 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W3043620090 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W3043620090 hasRelatedWork W2902148150 @default.
• W3043620090 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W3043620090 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
• W3043620090 hasVolume "296" @default.
• W3043620090 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3043620090 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3043620090 magId "3043620090" @default.
• W3043620090 workType "article" @default.