Information de reference pour ce titreAccession Number: | 00007632-200910150-00014.
|
Author: | Brett, Alan PhD *; Miller, Colin G. PhD +; Hayes, Curtis W. MD ++; Krasnow, Joel MD [S]; Ozanian, Takouhi PhD *; Abrams, Ken MD [P]; Block, Jon E. PhD [//]; van Kuijk, Cornelis MD, PhD **
|
Institution: | From the *Optasia Medical Ltd, Cheadle, Cheshire, United Kingdom; +Bio-Imaging Technologies Inc, Newton, PA; ++Department of Radiology, VCU Medical Center, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, VA; [S]Roche Pharmaceuticals, Nutley, NJ; [P]Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, NJ; [//]Jon E. Block, PhD, Inc., San Francisco, CA; and **Department of Radiology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
|
Title: | |
Source: | Spine. 34(22):2437-2443, October 15, 2009.
|
Abstract: | Study Design. Image analysis model development.
Objective. The objective of this study was to develop a novel clinical workflow tool that uses model-based shape recognition technology to allow efficient, semiautomated detailed annotation of each vertebra between T4 and L4 on plain lateral radiographs.
Summary of Background Data. Identification of prevalent vertebral fractures, especially when not symptomatic, has been problematic despite their importance. There is a recognized need to increase the opportunities to detect vertebral fractures so that clinically beneficial therapeutic interventions can be initiated.
Methods. Radiographs obtained from 165 subjects in the Canadian Multicenter Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) were used to construct a vertebral shape model of the vertebral column from T4 to L4 using a statistical learning technique, as well as to estimate the accuracy and precision of this automated software tool for vertebral shape analysis. Radiographs showing scoliosis greater than 15[degrees] were excluded.
Results. Vertebral contours defined by 95 points per vertebra, represented by 79,895 points in total, were assessed on 841 individual vertebrae. The mean absolute accuracy error calculated over each vertebra in each test image was 1.06 +/- 1.2 mm. This value corresponded to an average 3.4% of vertebral height. The mean precision error, reflecting interobserver variability, per vertebra of the resulting annotations was 0.61 +/- 0.73 mm. This value corresponded to an average 2.3% of vertebral height. Accuracy and precision error estimates did not differ notably by vertebral level.
Conclusion. The results of the current study indicate that statistical modeling can provide a robust tool for the accurate and precise semiautomated annotation of vertebral body shape from T4 to L4 in patients who do not have scoliosis greater than 15[degrees]. This method may prove useful as a clinical workflow tool to aid the physician in vertebral fracture assessment and might contribute to decision-making about pharmacologic treatment of osteoporosis.
(C) 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
|
Author Keywords: | osteoporosis; vertebral; fractures; radiographic; morphometry.
|
References: | 1. van Helden S, Cals J, Kessels F, et al. Risk of new clinical fractures within 2 years following a fracture. Osteoporos Int 2006;17:348-54.
2. Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, et al. Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 2000;15:721-39.
3. Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, et al. A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 2004;35:375-82.
4. Kaptoge S, Armbrecht G, Felsenberg D, et al. Whom to treat? The contribution of vertebral X-rays to risk-based algorithms for fracture prediction: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporos Int 2006;17:1369-81.
5. Lems WF. Clinical relevance of vertebral fractures. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:2-4.
6. Delmas PD, Genant HK, Crans GG, et al. Severity of prevalent vertebral fractures and the risk of subsequent vertebral and nonvertebral fractures: results from the MORE trial. Bone 2003;33:522-32.
7. Ettinger B, Black DM, Nevitt MC, et al. Contribution of vertebral deformities to chronic back pain and disability. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. J Bone Miner Res 1992;7:449-56.
8. Nevitt MC, Ettinger B, Black DM, et al. The association of radiographically detected vertebral fractures with back pain and function: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 1998;128:793-800.
9. Kado DM, Browner WS, Palermo L, et al; Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Vertebral fractures and mortality in older women: a prospective study. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:1215-20.
10. Kado DM, Duong T, Stone KL, et al. Incident vertebral fractures and mortality in older women: a prospective study. Osteoporos Int 2003;14:589-94.
11. Johnell O, Kanis JA, Oden A, et al. Mortality after osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2004;15:38-42.
12. Lentle BC, Brown JP, Khan A, et al. Recognizing and reporting vertebral fractures: reducing the risk of future osteoporotic fractures. Can Assoc Radiol J 2007;58:27-36.
13. Majumdar SR, Kim N, Colman I, et al. Incidental vertebral fractures discovered with chest radiography in the emergency department: prevalence, recognition, and osteoporosis management in a cohort of elderly patients. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:905-9.
14. Kim N, Rowe BH, Raymond G, et al. Underreporting of vertebral fractures on routine chest radiography. Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:297-300.
15. Gehlbach SH, Bigelow C, Heimisdottir M, et al. Recognition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting. Osteoporos Int 2000;11:577-82.
16. Guermazi A, Mohr A, Grigorian M, et al. Identification of vertebral fractures in osteoporosis. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2002;6:241-52.
17. Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, et al. Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 1993;8:1137-48.
18. Black DM, Cummings SR, Stone K, et al. A new approach to defining normal vertebral dimensions. J Bone Miner Res 1991;6:883-92.
19. Eastell R, Cedel SL, Wahner HW, et al. Classification of vertebral fractures. J Bone Miner Res 1991;6:207-15.
20. McCloskey EV, Spector TD, Eyres KS, et al. The assessment of vertebral deformity: a method for use in population studies and clinical trials. Osteoporos Int 1993;3:138-47.
21. Black DM, Palermo L, Nevitt MC, et al. Comparison of methods for defining prevalent vertebral deformities: the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. J Bone Miner Res 1995;10:890-902.
22. Genant HK. Assessment of vertebral fractures in osteoporosis research. J Rheumatol 1997;24:1212-4.
23. Genant HK, Jergas M. Assessment of prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in osteoporosis research. Osteoporos Int 2003;14(suppl 3):S43-55.
24. Jackson SA, Tenenhouse A, Robertson L. Vertebral fracture definition from population-based data: preliminary results from the Canadian Multicenter Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Osteoporos Int 2000;11:680-7.
25. Krieger N, Tenenhouse A, Joseph L, et al. The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos): background, rationale, methods. Can J Aging 1999;18:376-87.
26. Cootes TF, Taylor CJ. Statistical models of appearance for medical image analysis and computer vision. Proc SPIE Med Imaging 2001;4322:236-48.
27. Smyth PP, Taylor CJ, Adams JE. Vertebral shape: automatic measurement with active shape models. Radiology 1999;211:571-8.
28. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measurement error. BMJ 1996;313:744.
29. Delmas PD, van de Langerijt L, Watts NB, et al. Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study. J Bone Miner Res 2005;20:557-63.
30. Guidelines for Preclinical and Clinical Evaluation of Agents in the Prevention or Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis. Rockville, MD: Division of Metabolic and Endocrine Drug Products, Food and Drug Administration; 1994:1-23.
31. Gardner JC, von Ingersleben G, Heyano SL, et al. An interactive tutorial-based training technique for vertebral morphometry. Osteoporos Int 2001;12:63-70.
32. Grados F, Roux C, de Vernejoul MC, et al. Comparison of four morphometric definitions and a semiquantitative consensus reading for assessing prevalent vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 2001;12:716-22.
|
Language: | English.
|
Document Type: | Diagnostics.
|
Journal Subset: | Clinical Medicine. Health Professions.
|
ISSN: | 0362-2436
|
NLM Journal Code: | 7610646, uxk, 7610649
|
DOI Number: | https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0...- ouverture dans une nouvelle fenêtre
|
Annotation(s) | |
|
|