Abstract
Summary
We introduce an algorithm to evaluate hip DXA scans using quantitative image analysis procedures based on the Minkowski functionals (MF) for differentiation between post-menopausal women with and without hip fracture. In a population of 30 post-menopausal women, the new parameter has a highly discriminative potential with a performance superior to standard densitometry providing complementary information compared to BMD.
Introduction
We introduce a novel algorithm to evaluate DXA scans of the hip using quantitative image analysis based on the Minkowski functionals (MF) to identify post-menopausal women with hip-fracture and to compare the results with densitometry.
Methods
BMD of 30 women (73.9 ± 10.3 years), 15 of whom had a recent hip fracture, is obtained by DXA using the “total hip” ROI. The topology of mineral distribution in the scan images is evaluated using the MF-based parameter MF2D. ROC analysis is employed to assess the discriminative potential (fracture/non-fracture).
Results
The area-under-the-curve (AUC) for identification of patients with/without fractures by BMD is .72(p = 0.04), AUC for MF2D is .85(p = 0.001). No statistically significant correlation exists between MF2D and BMD. By discriminant analysis we can show that by combination of MF2D and BMD the outcome increases significantly: using BMD or MF2D alone, 63% and 70% of cases are classified correctly versus 77% of cases in the multivariate model.
Conclusion
The topology-based parameter has a high predictive potential with respect to identification of patients with high risk of hip fracture, performance is superior to densitometry. The new method provides information complementary to BMD. Best classification results are obtained when BMD and MF2D are combined in a multivariate model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Fitzpatrick P, Kirke PN, Daly L et al (2001) Predictors of first hip fracture and mortality post fracture in older women. Ir J Med Sci 170:49–53
Hreybe H, Salamoun M, Badra M et al (2004) Hip fractures in Lebanese patients: determinants and prognosis. J Clin Densitom 7:368–375
Pande I, Scott DL, O’Neill TW et al (2006) Quality of life, morbidity, and mortality after low trauma hip fracture in men. Ann Rheum Dis 65:87–92
Lang T, Augat P, Majumdar S et al (1998) Noninvasive assessment of bone density and structure using computed tomography and magnetic resonance. Bone 22:149S–153S
Krug R, Banerjee S, Han ET et al (2005) Feasibility of in vivo structural analysis of high-resolution magnetic resonance images of the proximal femur. Osteoporos Int 16:1307–1314
Link TM, Majumdar S, Augat P et al (1998) In vivo high resolution MRI of the calcaneus: differences in trabecular structure in osteoporosis patients. J Bone Miner Res 13:1175–1182
El-Kaissi S, Pasco JA, Henry MJ et al (2005) Femoral neck geometry and hip fracture risk: the Geelong osteoporosis study. Osteoporos Int 16:1299–1303
Bergot C, Bousson V, Meunier A et al (2002) Hip fracture risk and proximal femur geometry from DXA scans. Osteoporos Int 13:542–550
Alonso CG, Curiel MD, Carranza FH et al (2000) Femoral bone mineral density, neck-shaft angle and mean femoral neck width as predictors of hip fracture in men and women. Multicenter Project for Research in Osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 11:714–720
Crabtree NJ, Kroger H, Martin A et al (2002) Improving risk assessment: hip geometry, bone mineral distribution and bone strength in hip fracture cases and controls. The EPOS study. European Prospective Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporos Int 13:48–54
Boehm HF, Link TM, Monetti RA et al (2006) Analysis of the topological properties of the proximal femur on a regional scale: evaluation of multi-detector CT-scans for the assessment of biomechanical strength using local Minkowski functionals in 3D. SPIE Medical Imaging, San Diego, pp 6144–6254
Boehm HF, Link TM, Monetti RA et al (2004) Application of the Minkowski functionals in 3D to high resolution MR images of trabecular bone: prediction of the biomechanical strength by non-linear topological measures. SPIE Medical Imaging, San Diego, pp 5323–5370
Majumdar S, Newitt D, Mathur A et al (1996) Magnetic resonance imaging of trabecular bone structure in the distal radius: relationship with X-ray tomographic microscopy and biomechanics. Osteoporos Int 6:376–385
Michielsen K, De Raedt H, Kawakatsu T (2001) Integral-geometry morphological image analysis. Phys Rep 347:461–538
Berg BA (2004) Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations and their statistical analysis. World Scientific, Singapore
Robert CP, Casella G (2004) Monte Carlo statistical methods. Springer Heidelberg New York
Metz CE (1978) Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 8:283–298
Huberty C (1994) Applied discriminant analysis. Wiley, New York
Eriksson L, Johansson E, Muller M et al (2000) On the selection of the training set in environmental QSAR analysis when compounds are clustered. J Chemometrics 14:599–616
Stone M (1977) An asymptotic equivalence of choice of model by cross-validation and Akaike’s criterion. J R Stat Soc 38:44–47
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a parametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845
White J, Harris SS, Dallal GE et al (2003) Precision of single vs bilateral hip bone mineral density scans. J Clin Densitom 6:159–162
Hans D, Duboeuf F, Schott AM et al (1997) Effects of a new positioner on the precision of hip bone mineral density measurements. J Bone Miner Res 12:1289–1294
Faulkner KG, Genant HK, McClung M (1995) Bilateral comparison of femoral bone density and hip axis length from single and fan beam DXA scans. Calcif Tissue Int 56:26–31
Boehm HF, Eckstein F, Wunderer C et al (2005) Improved performance of hip DXA using a novel region of interest in the upper part of the femoral neck: in vitro study using bone strength as a standard of reference. J Clin Densitom 8:488–494
Gnudi S, Ripamonti C, Gualtieri G et al (1999) Geometry of proximal femur in the prediction of hip fracture in osteoporotic women. Br J Radiol 72:729–733
Gregory JS, Stewart A, Undrill PE et al (2005) Bone shape, structure, and density as determinants of osteoporotic hip fracture: a pilot study investigating the combination of risk factors. Invest Radiol 40:591–597
Lochmuller EM, Zeller JB, Kaiser D et al (1998) Correlation of femoral and lumbar DXA and calcaneal ultrasound, measured in situ with intact soft tissues, with the in vitro failure loads of the proximal femur. Osteoporos Int 8:591–598
Gnudi S, Ripamonti C, Lisi L et al (2002) Proximal femur geometry to detect and distinguish femoral neck fractures from trochanteric fractures in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 13:69–73
Greenspan SL, Beck TJ, Resnick NM et al (2005) Effect of hormone replacement, alendronate, or combination therapy on hip structural geometry: a 3-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Bone Miner Res 20:1525–1532
Berry E, Truscott JG, Stewart SP et al (1996) Spatial distribution of femoral bone mineral in dual energy X-ray absorptiometry images: a possible technique to improve discrimination between normal and osteoporotic patients. Br J Radiol 69:743–750
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boehm, H.F., Vogel, T., Panteleon, A. et al. Differentiation between post-menopausal women with and without hip fractures: enhanced evaluation of clinical DXA by topological analysis of the mineral distribution in the scan images. Osteoporos Int 18, 779–787 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0302-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0302-z