Improved estimates of strength and stiffness in pathologic vertebrae with bone metastases using CT-derived bone density compared with radiographic bone lesion quality classification

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare the ability of 1) CT-derived bone lesion quality (classification of vertebral bone metastases [BM]) and 2) computed CT-measured volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) for evaluating the strength and stiffness of cadaver vertebrae from donors with metastatic spinal disease. METHODS Forty-five thoracic and lumbar vertebrae were obtained from cadaver spines of 11 donors with breast, esophageal, kidney, lung, or prostate cancer. Each vertebra was imaged using microCT (21.4 μm), vBMD, and bone volume to total volume were computed, and compressive strength and stiffness experimentally measured. The microCT images were reconstructed at 1-mm voxel size to simulate axial and sagittal clinical CT images. Five expert clinicians blindly classified the images according to bone lesion quality (osteolytic, osteoblastic, mixed, or healthy). Fleiss’ kappa test was used to test agreement among 5 clinical raters for classifying bone lesion quality. Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used to test the difference in vertebral strength and stiffness based on bone lesion quality. Multivariable regression analysis was used to test the independent contribution of bone lesion quality, computed vBMD, age, gender, and race for predicting vertebral strength and stiffness. RESULTS A low interrater agreement was found for bone lesion quality (κ = 0.19). Although the osteoblastic vertebrae showed significantly higher strength than osteolytic vertebrae (p = 0.0148), the multivariable analysis showed that bone lesion quality explained 19% of the variability in vertebral strength and 13% in vertebral stiffness. The computed vBMD explained 75% of vertebral strength (p < 0.0001) and 48% of stiffness (p < 0.0001) variability. The type of BM affected vBMD-based estimates of vertebral strength, explaining 75% of strength variability in osteoblastic vertebrae (R2 = 0.75, p < 0.0001) but only 41% in vertebrae with mixed bone metastasis (R2 = 0.41, p = 0.0168), and 39% in osteolytic vertebrae (R2 = 0.39, p = 0.0381). For vertebral stiffness, vBMD was only associated with that of osteoblastic vertebrae (R2 = 0.44, p = 0.0024). Age and race inconsistently affected the model’s strength and stiffness predictions. CONCLUSIONS Pathologic vertebral fracture occurs when the metastatic lesion degrades vertebral strength, rendering it unable to carry daily loads. This study demonstrated the limitation of qualitative clinical classification of bone lesion quality for predicting pathologic vertebral strength and stiffness. Computed CT-derived vBMD more reliably estimated vertebral strength and stiffness. Replacing the qualitative clinical classification with computed vBMD estimates may improve the prediction of vertebral fracture risk.