Interobserver Reproducibility of Criteria for Vertebral Body Exclusion

Authors

  • Karen E Hansen MD,

    Corresponding author
    1. Rheumatology Section, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    2. Osteoporosis Clinical Center and Research Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    3. Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism Section, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    • Mailbox 3244, UWHC, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Neil Binkley,

    1. Osteoporosis Clinical Center and Research Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    2. Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism Section, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    3. Geriatrics Section, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Rose Christian,

    1. Osteoporosis Clinical Center and Research Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    2. Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism Section, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Nellie Vallarta-Ast,

    1. Osteoporosis Clinical Center and Research Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    2. Radiology Department, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Diane Krueger,

    1. Osteoporosis Clinical Center and Research Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Marc K Drezner,

    1. Osteoporosis Clinical Center and Research Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    2. Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism Section, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    3. Geriatrics, Research, Education, and Clinical Center, William S. Middleton Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
    • Dr Drezner served as a consultant for Aventis, GE-Lunar, Novartis, NPS Pharmaceuticals, and Roche. All other authors have no conflict of interest.

  • Robert D Blank

    1. Osteoporosis Clinical Center and Research Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    2. Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism Section, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    3. Geriatrics, Research, Education, and Clinical Center, William S. Middleton Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

We studied reproducibility of the ISCD vertebral exclusion criteria among four interpreters. Surprisingly, agreement among interpreters was only moderate, because of differences in threshold for diagnosing focal structural defects and choice of which vertebra among a pair discordant for T-score, area, or BMC to exclude. Our results suggest that reproducibility may be improved by specifically addressing the sources of interobserver disagreement.

Introduction: Although DXA is widely used to measure vertebral BMD, its interpretation is subject to multiple confounders including osteoarthritis, aortic calcification, and scoliosis. In an attempt to standardize interpretation and minimize the impact of artifacts, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) established criteria for vertebral exclusion, including the presence of a focal structural defect (FSD), discrepancy of >1 SD in T-score between adjacent vertebrae, and a lack of increase in BMC or area from L1 to L4. Whereas the efforts of the ISCD represent an important advance in BMD interpretation, the interobserver reproducibility with application of these criteria is unknown. We hypothesized that there would be substantial agreement among four interpreters regarding application of the exclusion criteria and the final lumbar spine T-score.

Materials and Methods: Each interpreter read a set of 200 lumbar DXA scans obtained on male veterans, applying the ISCD vertebral body exclusion criteria.

Results: Surprisingly, agreement among interpreters was only moderate. Differences in interpretation resulted from differing thresholds for recognition of FSD and the choice of excluding the upper or lower vertebral body for the criteria requiring comparison between adjacent vertebrae.

Conclusions: Despite their apparent simplicity, the ISCD vertebral exclusion criteria are difficult to apply consistently. In principle, appropriate refinement of the exclusion criteria may significantly improve interobserver agreement.

Ancillary