Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Objective: Hounsfield unit (HU) values measured using CT have been increasingly recognized to stand as a reliable corollary to dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scores in evaluating bone mineral density. The authors examined the correlation between cervical HU values and DEXA T- and Z-scores and determined novel cervical HU thresholds for determining bone quality classification.
Methods: One hundred patients who underwent both cervical spine CT and DEXA, 85 patients who underwent both lumbar CT and DEXA, and 128 patients who underwent cervical and lumbar CT within 24 months at a single institution were included in this retrospective review. Two independent reviewers collected HU values from 3 cervical vertebral levels (C4-6) and 4 lumbar vertebral levels (L1-4), and the averaged values were used. Pearson's correlation coefficient analysis was performed to compare the association of cervical HU values with lumbar HU values and T- and Z-scores. The mean cervical HU values for each DEXA classification were calculated and compared. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were created to determine the threshold and its sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis.
Results: Cervical (C4-6) HU values and average, lumbar, and femoral T- and Z-scores had significant correlations (0.436 > r > 0.274, all p < 0.01). A strong positive correlation between cervical and lumbar HU values was found (r = 0.79, p < 0.01). The average cervical HU value of healthy patients was 361.2 (95% CI 337.1-385.3); of osteopenic patients, 312.1 (95% CI 290.3-333.8); and of osteoporotic patients, 288.4 (95% CI 262.6-314.3). There was a significant difference between the cervical HU values of healthy and osteopenic patients (p = 0.0134) and between those of healthy and osteoporotic patients (p = 0.0304). The cervical HU value of 340.98 was 73.5% specific and 57.9% sensitive for diagnosing osteopenia with an area under the ROC (AUROC) curve of 0.655. The cervical HU value of 326.5 was 88.9% specific and 63.2% sensitive for diagnosing osteoporosis with an AUROC curve of 0.749.
Conclusions: This is the second large-scale study and first with a patient population from the United States to show that HU values obtained using cervical CT were significantly correlated with bone quality based on DEXA T- and Z-scores and to establish a cervical HU threshold for determining bone quality classification. These results show that cervical HU values can and should be used to predict poor bone quality in surgical cervical spine patients.
