Lomber manyetik rezonans görüntüleme erkeklerde osteoporozu tahmin etmek için kullanılabilir mi?

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, erkek hastalarda Dual Energy X-ray absorpsiyometrisi (DXA) ve manyetik rezonans görüntüleme (MRI) bulgularını karşılaştırmak ve osteoporozu teşhis etmede MRI'nin etkinliğini araştırmaktır Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu prospektif, kontrollü çalışmaya DXA ile osteoporoz tanısı konmuş 26 erkek ve osteoporozu olmayan 26 erkek dahil edildi; hepsinin lomber MRI ile sagital T1 ağırlıklı görüntüleri (T1WI) incelendi. Lomber vertebra 1–4'ün (L1–L4) sinyal-gürültü oranı (SNR) ölçümleri ve bu SNR değerlerinden türetilen M-skorları için T1WI görüntülerini kullanan yeni bir kantitatif yaklaşım hesaplandı ve DXA T skorlarıyla ilişkisi araştırıldı. Bulgular: Osteoporozlu erkeklerde ortalama vertebra SNR değerleri şu şekilde bulundu: L1 vertebra 78.30 (18.16-185.98), L2 vertebra 77.47 (16.64-152.12), L3 vertebra 65.15 (16.34-151.72), L4 vertebra 63.53 (15.02-151.52), L1-L4 vertebra ortalaması ise 72.54 (16.49-161.24). Kontrol grubuyla karşılaştırıldığında tüm değerler istatistiksel olarak anlamlıydı. Osteoporozlu erkeklerde M değeri 1.66 (0.98-5.86) olarak ölçülürken, kontrol grubunda 0.77 (0.88-1.06) olarak bulundu (p = 0.018). Osteoporozlu erkek hastalarda M skorunun L1-L4 lomber vertebraların DXA değerleriyle negatif korelasyon gösterdiği bulundu (r = -0,408, p = 0,029). M skoru için optimal kesim değeri 0,38 iken bu değer ile duyarlılık %69,2 ve özgüllük %73,1 olarak saptandı. Sonuç: M skoru, ek radyasyona gerek kalmadan ciddi komplikasyonlar gelişmeden önce yüksek riskli hastaların erken tanısı ve tedavisi için erkek hastalarda osteoporoz için bir tarama yöntemi olarak kullanılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• manyetik rezonans görüntüleme
• dual energy X-ray absorpsiyometri
• osteoporoz
• erkekler

Can lumbar magnetic resonance imaging be used to predict osteoporosis in men?

Öz

Aim: This study aims to compare the findings of Dual Energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in male patients and investigate MRI's effectiveness in diagnosing osteoporosis Material and Methods: This prospective, controlled study included 26 men diagnosed with osteoporosis by DXA and 26 men without osteoporosis, all of whom underwent lumbar MRI, with sagittal T1-weighted images (T1WI). A novel quantitative approach utilizing T1WI images for signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurements of lumbar vertebrae 1–4 (L1–L4) and M-scores derived from these SNR values has been calculated and the relationship with DXA T scores was investigated. Results: In men with osteoporosis, the average vertebra SNR values were found as follows: L1 vertebra 78.30 (18.16-185.98), L2 vertebra 77.47 (16.64-152.12), L3 vertebra 65.15 (16.34-151.72), L4 vertebra 63.53 (15.02-151.52), and the average of L1-L4 vertebrae was 72.54 (16.49-161.24). Compared to the control group, all values were statistically significant. The M value was measured as 1.66 (0.98-5.86) in men with osteoporosis, while it was 0.77 (0.88-1.06) in the control group (p = 0.018). In male patients with osteoporosis, the M score was found to be negatively correlated with the DXA values of the L1-L4 lumbar vertebrae (r = -0.408, p = 0.029). The optimal cutoff value for the M score was 0.38, which yielded a sensitivity of 69.2% and a specificity of 73.1%. Conclusion: The M score can be used as a screening method for osteoporosis in male patients for early diagnosis and treatment of high-risk patients before serious complications develop without additional radiation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• magnetic resonance imaging
• dual energy X-ray absorptiometry
• osteoporosis
• men

Kaynakça

1. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA 2001; 285: 785-95.
2. Sözen T, Özışık L, Başaran NÇ. An overview and management of osteoporosis. Eur J Rheumatol 2017; 4: 46-56.
3. Bisaccia M, Rinonapoli G, Meccariello L, et al. Osteoporosis in male patients: Epidemiology, clinical aspects and DEXA scan assessment. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 2019; 16: 31-5.
4. Wehrli FW, Song HK, Saha PK, Wright AC. Quantitative MRI for the assessment of bone structure and function. NMR Biomed 2006; 19: 731-64.
5. Khan AA, Slart RH, Ali DS. Osteoporotic fractures: diagnosis, evaluation, and significance from the International Working Group on DXA Best Practices. Mayo Clin Proc 2024; 99: 1127-41.
6. Tang GY, Kim YS. Assessment of osteoporosis based on changes in SNR and ADC values on MR diffusion-weighted images. Prog Med Phys 2010; 21: 70-7.
7. Shen W, Chen J, Punyanitya M, Shapses S, Heshka S, Heymsfield SB. MRI-measured bone marrow adipose tissue is inversely related to DXA-measured bone mineral in Caucasian women. Osteoporos Int 2007; 18: 641-7.
8. Griffith JF, Engelke K, Genant HK, et al. Vertebral marrow fat content and diffusion and perfusion indexes in women with varying bone density: MR evaluation. Radiology 2006; 241: 831-8.

9. Schellinger D, Lin CS, Hatipoglu HG, et al. Potential value of vertebral proton MR spectroscopy in determining bone weakness. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001; 22: 1620-7.
10. Karampinos DC, Ruschke S, Gordijenko O, et al. Association of MRS-based vertebral bone marrow fat fraction with bone strength in a human in vitro model. J Osteoporos 2015; 2015: 152349.
11. He J, Fang H, Li X. Vertebral bone marrow fat content in normal adults with varying bone densities at 3T magnetic resonance imaging. Radiology 2013; 268: 853-9.
12. Shen W, Gong X, Weiss J, et al. Relationship between MRI-measured bone marrow adipose tissue and hip and spine bone mineral density in African-American and Caucasian participants: the CARDIA study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012; 97: 1337-46.
13. Rinonapoli G, Ruggiero C, Meccariello L, Bisaccia M, Ceccarini P, Caraffa A. Osteoporosis in men: a review of an underestimated bone condition. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 22: 2105.
14. Bandirali M, Di Leo G, Papini GD, et al. A new diagnostic score to detect osteoporosis in patients undergoing lumbar spine MRI. Eur Radiol 2015; 25: 2951-9.
15. Başaloğlu C, Güngör Ö, Balcı A. The effect of abdominal anatomy on the measurement of bone mineral density with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2021; 45: 458-62.
16. Vilaca T, Eastell R, Schini M. Osteoporosis in men. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2022; 10: 273-83.
17. Atik İ, Atik S, Gül E, Bulut S. Contribution of lumbar vertebral magnetic resonance imaging to diagnosis in women with osteoporosis. Turk J Osteoporos 2022; 28: 77-82.
18. Düzkalır HG, Karaoysal ÖA, Fıstıkçıoğlu N. The diagnostic efficacy of quantitative data from lumbar magnetic resonance imaging findings in osteoporosis and osteopenia diagnosis and differentiation in postmenopausal women. Haydarpasa Numune Med J 2024; 64: 362-9.
19. Kadri A, Binkley N, Hernando D, Anderson PA. Opportunistic use of lumbar magnetic resonance imaging for osteoporosis screening. Osteoporos Int 2022; 33: 1-9.
20. Saad MM, Ahmed AT, Mohamed KE, Habba MR. Role of lumbar spine signal intensity measurement by MRI in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2019; 50: 1-7.
21. Ishijima H, Ishizaka H, Horikoshi H, Sakurai M. Water fraction of lumbar vertebral bone marrow estimated from chemical shift misregistration on MR imaging: normal variations with age and sex. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167: 355-8.
22. FRAX®. Available from: https://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX/tool.aspx?lang=tu. Accessed September 2024.
23. Kanis JA. Assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health-care level. Technical Report 2007; 1: 339.
24. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-08, Center of Disease Control Website. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/index.htm.
25. Saad MM, Ahmed AT, Mohamed KE, Habba MR. Role of lumbar spine signal intensity measurement by MRI in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2019; 50: 1-7.
26. Ishijima H, Ishizaka H, Horikoshi H, Sakurai M. Water fraction of lumbar vertebral bone marrow estimated from chemical shift misregistration on MR imaging: normal variations with age and sex. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167: 355-8.