Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
J Clin Densitom. 2018 Apr-Jun;21(2):269-280. doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2017.02.002. Epub 2017 Mar 27.
The objective of this study was to compare the test-retest precision error for peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT)-derived marrow density and marrow area segmentation at the tibia using 3 software packages. A secondary analysis of pQCT data in young adults (n = 18, mean ± standard deviation 25.4 ± 3.2 yr), older adults (n = 47, 71.8 ± 8.2 yr), and individuals with spinal cord injury (C1-T12 American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale, classes A-C; n = 19, 43.5 ± 8.6 yr) was conducted. Repeat scans of the tibial shaft (66%) were performed using pQCT (Stratec XCT2000). Test-retest precision errors (root mean square standard deviation and root mean square coefficient of variation [RMSCV%]) for marrow density (mg/cm) and marrow area (mm) were reported for the watershed-guided manual segmentation method (SliceOmatic version 4.3 [Sliceo-WS]) and the 2 threshold-based edge detection methods (Stratec version 6.0 [Stratec-TB] and BoneJ version 1.3.14 [BoneJ-TB]). Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement were computed to evaluate test-retest discrepancies within and between methods of analysis and subgroups. RMSCV% for marrow density segmentation was >5% for all methods across subgroups (Stratec-TB: 12.2%-28.5%, BoneJ-TB: 14.5%-25.2%, and Sliceo-WS: 10.9%-23.0%). RMSCV% for marrow area segmentation was within 5% for all methods across subgroups (Stratec-TB: 1.9%-4.4%, BoneJ-TB: 2.6%-5.1%, and Sliceo-WS: 2.4%-4.5%), except using BoneJ-TB in older adults. Intermethod discrepancies in marrow density appeared to be present across the range of marrow density values and did not differ by subgroup. Intermethod discrepancies varied to a greater extent for marrow area and were found to be more frequently at mid- to higher-range values for those with spinal cord injury. Precision error for pQCT-derived marrow density segmentation exceeded 5% for all methods of analysis across a range of bone mineral densities and fat infiltration, whereas precision error for marrow area segmentation ranged from 2% to 5%. Further investigation is necessary to determine alternative acquisition and analysis methods for pQCT-derived marrow segmentation.
本研究旨在比较三种软件包在胫骨外周定量计算机断层扫描(pQCT)衍生骨髓密度和骨髓面积分割的测试-重测精密度误差。对年轻成年人(n=18,平均年龄±标准差 25.4±3.2 岁)、老年人(n=47,71.8±8.2 岁)和脊髓损伤个体(C1-T12 美国脊髓损伤协会损伤量表,A-C 级;n=19,43.5±8.6 岁)的 pQCT 数据进行了二次分析。胫骨骨干的重复扫描(pQCT Stratec XCT2000)采用分水岭引导的手动分割方法(SliceOmatic 版本 4.3[Sliceo-WS])和两种基于阈值的边缘检测方法(Stratec 版本 6.0[Stratec-TB]和 BoneJ 版本 1.3.14[BoneJ-TB])进行了测试-重测精度误差(均方根标准差和均方根变异系数[RMSCV%])的评估。为了评估分析方法和亚组内及组间的测试-重测差异,计算了 Bland-Altman 图和 95%一致性界限。在所有亚组中,骨髓密度分割的 RMSCV%均超过所有方法的 5%(Stratec-TB:12.2%-28.5%,BoneJ-TB:14.5%-25.2%和 Sliceo-WS:10.9%-23.0%)。在所有亚组中,骨髓面积分割的 RMSCV%均在 5%以内(Stratec-TB:1.9%-4.4%,BoneJ-TB:2.6%-5.1%和 Sliceo-WS:2.4%-4.5%),但老年人使用 BoneJ-TB 除外。骨髓密度的组间差异似乎存在于骨髓密度值的整个范围内,并且与亚组无关。骨髓面积的组间差异变化较大,且在脊髓损伤患者的中至高范围值更为常见。所有分析方法的 pQCT 衍生骨髓密度分割的精度误差均超过 5%,而骨髓面积分割的精度误差范围为 2%至 5%。需要进一步研究以确定用于 pQCT 衍生骨髓分割的替代采集和分析方法。