| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Contact Us |  
top_img
Radiation Oncology Journal > Volume 43(1); 2025 > Article
Hurmuz, Ozyurek, Yigit, Yalcin, Yedekci, Zorlu, and Cengiz: Hounsfield units predict vertebral compression fractures in gastric cancer survivors after adjuvant irradiation

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the risk factors and predictive value of vertebral Hounsfield units (HUs) for vertebral compression fracture (VCF) development in gastric cancer (GC) patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT).

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 271 patients with non-metastatic GC who received adjuvant RT between 2010 and 2020. The vertebral bodies from 9th thoracic (T9) to 2nd lumbar (L2) were contoured in computed tomographies used for RT planning, and V30, V35, V40, mean doses, and HUs of vertebrae were documented. We conducted univariate and multivariate analyses to identify the risk factors for VCF development.

Results

The median follow-up time was 35.7 months. VCF developed in 23 patients (8.5%) in a median of 30.6 months (range, 3.4 to 117.3) after the end of RT. In total, 37 vertebrae were fractured, with 14 located in T12, nine in L1, seven in T11, four in L2, and three in T10. Older age, female sex, non-smoking status, and lower median vertebrae HUs were significantly associated with VCF in the univariate analysis. In the multivariate analysis, lower median HUs of T12 vertebrae (odds ratio, 0.965; 95% confidence interval, 0.942 to 0.989; p = 0.004) remained significant. The optimal cut-off value for T12 HU was 205.1, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.765, sensitivity of 85.7%, and specificity of 65%.

Conclusion

The lower median HU value of T12 vertebrae is a significant and independent risk factor for VCF development in GC patients who received adjuvant RT. HUs values serve as a simple and reliable predictor of VCF development in this population.

Introduction

Gastric cancer (GC) ranks among the most prevalent and fatal malignancies globally, with around 1.09 million new cases and 768,000 deaths reported in 2020 [1]. The main treatment option for localized GC is surgery. However, the risk of recurrence and metastasis remains high, particularly in advanced stages [2,3]. Various strategies, including perioperative chemotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT), aim to improve long-term survival [2]. While the benefit of radiotherapy (RT) as an adjuvant treatment is debatable, studies show no significant overall survival improvement with RT after quality-assured gastrectomy [4-6]. Adjuvant CRT could improve overall survival for patients, especially those who have undergone D1 lymphadenectomy or R1 resection [7-9].
GC patients undergoing gastrectomy face elevated osteoporosis and fracture risks compared to the general population, with incidences of 36% and 42.1 cases per 1,000 person-years, respectively [10,11]. Cancer treatments like endocrine therapies and chemotherapy are known to reduce bone mineral density (BMD) and increase fracture risks, but the association with RT remains unclear [12,13]. RT can induce bone loss and fragility by directly damaging the bone cells and matrix [14,15], as well as indirectly affecting the hormonal and inflammatory pathways that regulate bone metabolism [16,17]. RT could have negative effects on the bone health of GC survivors, such as decreased BMD, osteoporosis, and vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) [18,19].
VCF is a collapse of the vertebral body that can cause pain, disability, deformity, and increased mortality. VCFs can occur spontaneously or as a result of minor trauma in patients with weakened bones [20]. Several factors have been identified as potential predictors of VCFs in cancer survivors, such as age, sex, body mass index, smoking, alcohol intake, history of osteoporotic fracture, osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes mellitus, hyperthyroidism, systemic glucocorticoid usage, low BMD, and low Hounsfield units (HUs) [14,21-26]. Treatment-related factors like higher RT doses, technique, surgery type, and chemotherapy usage may also influence VCF risk [14,22,26,27]. VCFs have been reported in a variety of cancers following RT, including cervical, uterine, prostate, rectal, lung, pancreatic, esophageal, and GCs [18,24-26,28-36].
HUs, quantifying material radiodensity on computed tomography (CT) scans, are associated with BMD and predict osteoporosis and VCFs in diverse populations. [19,37-40]. Yet, the utility of the HU in predicting VCFs after adjuvant irradiation for GC has not been thoroughly investigated.
This study aims to investigate the correlation between HU and VCF occurrence in GC patients receiving adjuvant RT or CRT, along with exploring other potential risk factors for VCFs. We hypothesized that lower HU values would correlate with higher VCF rates, and the HU could be a simple and convenient way to assess VCF risk in GC survivors.

Materials and Methods

1. Patient selection

We conducted a single-institution retrospective study of the medical records of 276 patients with non-metastatic GC who received adjuvant RT or CRT at our center between January 2010 and December 2020. We excluded five patients who were under the age of 18. The analysis incorporated the data of 271 patients who received adjuvant RT or CRT.
The local ethics committee approved this study, which followed the Declaration of Helsinki's guidelines [41].

2. Treatment and follow-up

According to our institutional protocol, CT scans of the abdomen with intravenous contrast were performed with a slice thickness of 2.5 mm for RT planning. The clinical target volumes for RT planning included the gastric bed and lymphatics at risk [42]. The prescription dose was 45 Gy administered in 1.8–2 Gy fractions for patients with negative surgical margins. For patients with residual disease, a boost dose of 5.4–14.4 Gy was delivered to the gastric bed. All but six patients (2.0%) were treated using 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, or volumetric-modulated arc therapy techniques. Treatments were delivered using either Versa HD (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) or Clinac DHX (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Chemotherapy was administered in neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and/or concomitant settings.
Following the completion of RT or CRT, patients underwent clinical examinations every 3 months for the first 2 years, then twice a year for the next 3 years, and once a year after that. Each check-up encompassed a physical assessment, a complete blood count, a biochemical profile, and CT scans of the abdomen and thorax. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, positron emission tomography–CT, or brain magnetic resonance imaging tests were performed in cases of suspicion of recurrence or metastasis.

3. Procedures

The vertebral bodies from 9th thoracic (T9) to 2nd lumbar (L2) were retrospectively contoured in the CT scans used for RT planning. The entire vertebral body, including both the cortical and trabecular areas, was included in the region of interest (Fig. 1). The average HU value for each vertebra was automatically measured using the RayStation (RaySearch, Stockholm, Sweden) treatment planning system. Additionally, the volume of the vertebral bodies receiving a dose of 30 Gy or more (V30), V35, V40, and mean radiation doses (Dmean) were recorded. To diagnose VCF, a reconstructed sagittal image and the semi-quantitative method of Genant were employed in the follow-up CTs [43]. VCF was defined as a loss of ≥20%–25% in height or ≥10%–20% in area of the vertebral bodies in the sagittal view. Vertebral fractures that developed before RT and were secondary to bone metastases or the direct vertebral invasion of a recurrent tumor were excluded. The assessment was conducted on the relationship between VCF development and age, sex, smoking history, alcohol intake history, surgery type, RT technique, total RT dose, vertebrae doses (V30, V35, V40, and Dmean), and vertebrae HUs before treatment.

4. Statistical analysis

The follow-up time was calculated from the final day of RT, and time to VCF development was defined as the period from the end of RT to the detection of VCF on follow-up CT scans. The median values were used as the cut-off for the analyses. Chi-square or Fischer’s exact test were used to compare ratios between independent categorical groups. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare non-normally distributed numerical variables. Univariate and multivariate analyses used binary logistic regression with backward selection, expressing results with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Variables with p < 0.10 in univariate analyses were used for multivariate analyses to determine independent predictors for VCFs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis identified significant risk factors' cutoff points for VCF development. Statistical significance was determined by a p-value less than 0.05. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was utilized for all statistical analyses.

Results

The median age at diagnosis was 58 years (range, 20 to 83). The detailed patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics are presented in Table 1. The most frequently applied neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen was docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil in nine patients (45.0%), followed by 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel in eight patients (40.0%). The most frequently used concomitant chemotherapy regimen was capecitabine in 148 patients (58.5%). The most frequently applied adjuvant chemotherapy regimen was capecitabine and oxaliplatin in 79 patients (31.2%), followed by 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid in 63 patients (24.9%).
The median follow-up time was 35.7 months (range, 2.8 to 136.5). VCFs developed in 23 out of 271 patients (8.5%). The median development time for VCFs was 30.6 months (range, 3.4 to 117.3). Six patients (26.1%) developed fractures within the first year, and 11 patients (47.8%) within 2 years. Five patients (21.7%) developed fractures after 5 years. Nine patients (39.1%) had VCFs at multiple vertebral levels. Of these, five had fractures at two levels, three had fractures at three levels, and one had fractures at four levels. VCF was observed in 37 vertebrae. Fourteen of them (37.9%) were located at T12 level, nine (24.3%) at L1 level, seven (18.9%) at T11 level, four (10.8%) at L2 level, and three (8.1%) at T10 level. All fractured bones were within the irradiated volumes.
The effects of clinical features on the development of VCFs are shown in Table 2. Older age (p = 0.007), female sex (p = 0.021), and non-smoking status (p = 0.023) are associated with a higher incidence of VCFs. The effects of vertebral doses and HUs on the development of VCFs are shown in Table 3. Patients who developed VCF had significantly lower median HUs for T10, T11, T12, L1, and L2 vertebrae (212.9, 197.2, 182.4, 187.6, and 188.3) compared to those who did not (239.3, 224.5, 217.6, 208.8, and 214.7), respectively (p = 0.005, p = 0.003, p = 0.002, p = 0.009, and p = 0.003). The development of VCFs was not significantly affected by the history of alcohol intake, surgery type, RT technique, RT total dose, or the doses of radiation received by the vertebrae (V30, V35, V40, and Dmean).
Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for factors found to be associated with VCF development (Table 4). Older age, female sex, non-smoking status, and lower median HUs of T10-L2 vertebrae were significantly associated with a higher probability of developing VCFs in the univariate analysis. Only lower median HUs of T12 vertebrae (odds ratio, 0.965; 95% CI, 0.942 to 0.989; p = 0.004) remained significantly associated with VCF development in the multivariate analysis.
In the analysis of whether age (<58 vs. ≥58 years) and sex (male vs. female) affect T12 HU values, it was found that neither sex (p = 0.499) nor age (p = 0.151) had a significant impact on the T12 HU values. The impact of T12 HU values on VCF incidence stratified by age and sex is shown in Table 5. In all subgroups, patients with VCF had significantly lower T12 HU values compared to those without VCF.
ROC analysis was performed to find the cut-off value for T12 HUs that best predicted VCF development (Fig. 2). The ideal cut-off value for T12 HUs forecasting VCF development was found to be 205.1. Area under the ROC curve for T12 HUs was 0.765 (95% CI, 0.645 to 0.886; p = 0.002). The optimal sensitivity and specificity for the T12 HUs cut-off level were 85.7% and 65%, respectively. For a threshold value of 221 HUs, the sensitivity was found to be 93%, and for a threshold value of 171.5 HUs, the specificity was found to be 90%.

Discussion and Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the most extensive research on VCFs following adjuvant RT or CRT for GC, comprising the data of 271 patients. In this study, T12 vertebrae HUs were associated with the risk of VCF development in GC patients who underwent RT. The cut-off value was determined to be 205.1, with 85.7% sensitivity and 65% specificity.
Numerous studies have explored VCF prevalence and associated risk factors, revealing incidence rates ranging from 1.7% to 89% in patients undergoing treatment for various cancers such as gynecologic, gastrointestinal, lung, pancreatic, or prostate cancer [14,34-36]. Various methodological differences, such as study designs (retrospective or prospective), varying follow-up scan frequencies, different imaging techniques, RT doses, and the inclusion of asymptomatic VCFs, collectively account for the observed wide range. Our study reported a VCF rate of 8.5%, which is consistent with the literature [18,28,33-36]. We observed that the vertebral fracture rates in studies examining VCF in patients receiving RT due to cervical cancer in Japan were higher than the fracture rate in our study [24,25,30,31]. We think that this could possibly be explained by the population being predominantly female, known to have higher fracture risks, and the higher prevalence of vertebral osteoporosis in Japanese society compared to the United States and Europe [14,44].
In our study, the median time for the development of VCFs was 30.6 months, longer than previously reported in the literature, which ranged from 6 to 20 months [14]. This discrepancy may be attributed to the extended follow-up period in our study. Among patients who developed VCF, 21.7% experienced fractures after 5 years. The longest VCF development time observed was 117.3 months, which, to our knowledge, is the longest duration reported for VCF development in the literature. Most VCFs (62.2%) occurred in the T12 and L1 vertebrae, which are junctional and weight-bearing, mirroring findings in cervical cancer patients in whom fractures frequently appear in the weight-bearing sacrum and sacroiliac joints [29]. These findings indicate that even though RT affects all bones in the treatment field, the weight-bearing vertebrae are the most susceptible to fracture development.
In evaluating factors influencing VCF development, older age, female sex, non-smoking status, and low vertebral HU values were associated with increased VCF incidence in univariate analysis. Subsequent analysis revealed a significant association between smoking status and sex (χ2 = 12.72; p < 0.001). We concluded that the relationship between non-smoking status and VCF formation was mainly due to sex, as most males (61.0%) were smokers and most females (61.7%) were non-smokers, which indicates smoking status as a confounding factor. Similar to our findings, numerous studies on VCF risk factors in cancer patients have also linked advanced age and female sex with higher VCF incidence [26,33,35].
The pathophysiology of radiation-induced bone damage remains incompletely understood. Irradiation lowers the number of osteoblasts, stops their cell cycle, and makes them more prone to cell death, meaning that less bone formation is a key factor in bone damage caused by RT. Radiation also seems to harm the bone matrix, increase fat in the marrow, and impair the blood supply to bone, all of which likely affect the direct impact of RT on bone health and strength [14]. Our study found no association between total RT dose, vertebral doses (V30, V35, V40, and Dmean), and VCF development, despite conflicting literature data. Studies show that every 5-Gy increase in the mean vertebral dose raises the risk of VCF development by factors of 1.19 and 1.22, according to Fujii et al. [26] and Wu et al. [36], respectively. In both studies, the median total RT dose was 60 Gy. This exceeded the median total RT dose in our study, which was 45 Gy. In addition, Uezono et al. [24] examined the risk factors for pelvic fractures in cervical cancers that received RT. They also found no significant association between fractures and vertebral doses, consistent with our study. The median total RT dose was 50.4 Gy, which closely resembled that of our study. Considering all these data, it was thought that the RT dose threshold for vertebral bones could be so high that we could not observe the effect of the RT dose on VCF development.
Osteoporosis, which is indicated by low BMD, is a significant risk factor and an indirect predictor of VCF development [14]. While dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) is considered the gold standard for assessing BMD [45], it is not routinely used for cancer survivors. This, coupled with the focus of BMD measurements on areas like the lumbar spine and femoral neck, makes it difficult to assess bone loss in radiation-affected areas. Hence, considering bone density measurements using CT before RT could be valuable in predicting the development of fractures. Numerous studies have shown that there is a strong relationship between BMD assessed by DEXA and HUs derived from CT scans [19,37-40]. One of the most important findings of our study was that pre-RT HU values of vertebrae were the best parameter to show the probability of VCF development, as well as the findings of previous studies [24,25]. While all vertebral HU values were associated with VCF development in univariate analysis, only the T12 HU value remained significant in multivariate analysis. Uezono et al. [24] and Ishikawa et al. [25] conducted studies investigating the risk of pelvic fractures in patients with cervical cancer who received definitive RT. In both studies, it was observed that only pre-RT CT HU values were associated with the development of pelvic fractures, consistent with our study.
We identified 205.1 as the optimal cut-off point for the T12 vertebrae HU value. A threshold of 221 HUs showed 93% sensitivity, and 171.5 HUs had 90% specificity. Wu et al. [36] found a higher risk of thoracic vertebral fracture in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients with initial CT scan HU values below 128. However, their study did not include the cortical edges of vertebrae in the region of interest for HU determination, possibly accounting for the discrepancy.
Our study aimed to simplify VCF risk assessment for radiation oncologists. The HU values of the vertebrae indicated the likelihood of VCF occurrence. Therefore, the VCF risk could be estimated by using treatment planning systems. We can also use the HUs from CT scans to estimate BMD, save money, and reduce radiation exposure from DEXA tests. Moreover, the sagittal views of the vertebrae from CT scans can be used for detecting hidden and asymptomatic bone fractures. By incorporating these measurements into regular practice, osteopenia, osteoporosis, and fracture risk could be identified.
Our study has several strengths, such as a relatively large sample size, a long follow-up period, a homogeneous population of GC patients, a standardized adjuvant RT or CRT protocol, and objective measurement of HUs and VCFs. However, our study also has some limitations, mostly due to its retrospective nature. The patients’ comorbidity status, body mass index, basal calcium level, and vitamin D level, as well as whether they received replacement therapy during follow-up, were unknown. The patients’ baseline BMD was not assessed using the DEXA method, which is the most reliable technique. The clinical outcomes of VCFs, such as pain, disability, quality of life, and mortality, that are important aspects to be considered in the management of cancer patients, were not evaluated. As all patients in our study population received adjuvant RT, we were unable to compare the development of VCF and associated factors between patients who received RT and those who did not. Furthermore, the effect of RT on the HU value was not observed by measuring HUs in the sequential CT scans of the patients during the follow-up. Finally, since there are several techniques for HU measurement, cut-off values for HUs should be interpreted with attention to the measurement technique used in each study.
In conclusion, our study suggests that GC patients who receive adjuvant RT or CRT are at increased risk of VCF. Additionally, low pre-RT or CRT vertebral HU values are simple and reliable indicators of VCF risk. These results imply that HU measurement from CT scans can be used as a screening tool to identify high-risk patients who may benefit from preventive interventions, such as replacement therapy with calcium and vitamin D, vertebral augmentation, or prophylactic vertebroplasty. Therefore, further studies with prospective, long-term, and comprehensive assessments are needed to validate and extend our findings and to explore the possible mechanisms and preventive strategies for VCFs in GC patients who receive RT.

Statement of Ethics

This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Hacettepe University (Project No: GO 22/312, Decision No: 2022/06-37). A written informed consent for the treatment and use of data for the present study were obtained from every patient prior to treatment.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

None.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, PH, SY, MC; Data curation, YO, EY, FYY; Formal analysis, YO, EY, FYY; Methodology, PH, SY, FYY; Project administration, PH; Supervision, PH, MC; Visualization, FZ; Writing – original draft, PH, YO, EY; Writing – review & editing, FZ, MC.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Fig. 1.
Vertebral body contouring. (A) T12 vertebral body contour in axial view. (B) T9 to L2 vertebrae contours in sagittal view.
roj-2024-00409f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve demonstrating the accuracy of T12 Hounsfield units for the assessment of vertebral compression fracture development.
roj-2024-00409f2.jpg
Table 1.
Baseline patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics
Characteristic Value (n=271)
Age (year) 58 (20–83)
Sex
 Male 177 (65.3)
 Female 94 (34.7)
History of smoking
 Yes 144 (53.1)
 No 127 (46.9)
History of alcohol intake
 Yes 37 (13.7)
 No 234 (86.3)
Histology
 Diffuse 142 (52.4)
 Intestinal 114 (42.1)
 Mixed 15 (5.5)
Differentiation degree
 Well 18 (6.6)
 Moderate 53 (19.6)
 Poor 176 (64.9)
 Unknown 24 (8.9)
Tumor location
 Proximal 123 (45.4)
 Distal 135 (49.8)
 Diffuse 13 (4.8)
pT classificationa)
 T1 15 (5.5)
 T2 19 (7.0)
 T3 94 (34.7)
 T4 143 (52.8)
pN classificationa)
 N0 55 (20.3)
 N1 42 (15.5)
 N2 75 (27.7)
 N3 99 (36.5)
Pathological stagea)
 IB 9 (3.3)
 IIA 37 (13.6)
 IIB 40 (14.8)
 IIIA 88 (32.5)
 IIIB 62 (22.9)
 IIIC 35 (12.9)
Tumor size (cm) 5 (1–18)
Metastatic lymph node ratio (median) 0.18
Perineural invasion (positive) 128 (47.2)
Lymphovascular space invasion (positive) 150 (55.4)
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
 Yes 20 (7.4)
 No 251 (92.6)
Surgery type
 Total gastrectomy 140 (51.7)
 Subtotal gastrectomy 131 (48.3)
Dissection type
 D1 170 (62.7)
 D2 90 (33.2)
 D3 10 (3.7)
 D4 1 (0.4)
Surgical margins
 Positive 33 (12.2)
 Negative 238 (87.8)
Concomitant chemotherapy
 Yes 261 (96.3)
 No 10 (3.7)
Adjuvant chemotherapy
 Yes 253 (93.4)
 No 18 (6.6)
RT dose (Gy)
 45 241 (88.9)
 >45 30 (11.1)
RT technique
 2DRT-3DCRT 166 (61.3)
 IMRT-VMAT 105 (38.7)

Values are presented as median (range) or number of patients (%) unless otherwise indicated.

RT, radiotherapy; 2DRT, 2-dimensional radiotherapy; 3DCRT, 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy; VMAT, volumetric-modulated arc therapy.

a)According to the American Joint Committee of Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition.

Table 2.
The effect of clinical features on the development of VCF
VCF (n=23) No VCF (n=248) Total (n=271) p-value
Age (year) 63 (49–79) 57 (20–83) 58 (20–83) 0.007a)
Sex
 Female 13 (56.5) 81 (32.7) 94 (34.7) 0.021b)
 Male 10 (43.5) 167 (67.3) 177 (65.3)
History of smoking
 Yes 7 (30.4) 137 (55.2) 144 (53.1) 0.023b)
 No 16 (69.6) 111 (44.8) 127 (46.9)
History of alcohol intake
 Yes 1 (4.3) 36 (14.5) 37 (13.7) 0.335b)
 No 22 (95.7) 212 (85.5) 234 (86.3)
Surgery
 Total gastrectomy 14 (60.9) 126 (50.8) 140 (51.7) 0.356b)
 Subtotal gastrectomy 9 (39.1) 122 (49.2) 131 (48.3)
RT technique
 2DRT-3DCRT 10 (43.5) 95 (38.3) 105 (38.7) 0.626b)
 IMRT-VMAT 13 (56.5) 153 (61.7) 166 (61.3)
RT total dose (Gy)
 45 21 (91.3) 220 (88.7) 241 (88.9) >0.99b)
 >45 2 (8.7) 28 (11.3) 30 (11.1)

Values are presented as median (range) or number (%).

VCF, vertebral compression fracture; RT, radiotherapy; 2DRT, 2-dimensional radiotherapy; 3DCRT, 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy; VMAT, volumetric-modulated arc therapy.

a)Calculated by the Mann-Whitney U test.

b)Calculated by the chi-square test.

Table 3.
The effect of vertebrae doses and HUs on the development of VCF
VCF No VCF Total p-valuea)
T10 vertebra
 Dmean (Gy) 31.0 (21.0–39.0) 30.5 (10.0–37.5) 30.5 (12.0–38.0) 0.640
 V30 (%) 49.0 (24.0–85.0) 56.5 (8.5–93.0) 55.5 (10.0–92.0) 0.790
 V35 (%) 40.5 (14.0–70.0) 39.0 (5.0–69.5) 39.5 (6.0–70.0) 0.836
 V40 (%) 30.5 (7.0–54.0) 20.0 (3.5–43.0) 20.5 (4.0–44.0) 0.655
 HUs 212.9 (199.6–221.0) 239.3 (214.2–267.7) 229.8 (206.9–256.8) 0.005
T11 vertebra
 Dmean (Gy) 37.0 (34.0–40.0) 38.0 (34.0–40.5) 38.0 (34.0–40.0) 0.924
 V30 (%) 78.5 (66.0–95.0) 96.0 (68.0–99.0) 95.0 (68.0–99.0) 0.232
 V35 (%) 62.0 (41.0–85.0) 75.5 (46.5–90.0) 70.5 (45.0–90.0) 0.355
 V40 (%) 38.0 (27.0–51.0) 46.0 (31.0–63.0) 46.0 (31.0–63.0) 0.738
 HUs 197.2 (192.3–207.4) 224.5 (203.7–250.1) 216.8 (198.8–242.8) 0.003
T12 vertebra
 Dmean (Gy) 38.0 (37.0–42.0) 40.0 (37.0–41.0) 40.0 (37.0–41.0) 0.288
 V30 (%) 92.5 (78.0–100.0) 96.0 (88.0–100.0) 96.0 (86.0–100.0) 0.334
 V35 (%) 68.5 (51.0–90.0) 84.0 (59.5–91.5) 82.0 (59.0–91.0) 0.313
 V40 (%) 40.5 (32.0–72.0) 54.0 (39.5–60.5) 53.0 (39.0–61.0) 0.230
 HUs 182.4 (170.7–203.3) 217.6 (194.6–234.1) 212.9 (186.6–229.9) 0.002
L1 vertebra
 Dmean (Gy) 35.5 (33.0–39.0) 38.0 (28.0–41.0) 38.0 (30.0–40.0) 0.499
 V30 (%) 84.0 (59.0–96.0) 94.0 (50.0–100.0) 92.5 (50.0–99.0) 0.429
 V35 (%) 55.5 (40.0–76.0) 82.0 (25.0–88.0) 78.0 (28.0–88.0) 0.274
 V40 (%) 31.0 (27.0–41.0) 40.0 (15.0–53.0) 38.5 (16.0–51.0) 0.426
 HUs 187.6 (166–201.8) 208.8 (190.2–226.5) 206.3 (186.4–224.3) 0.009
L2 vertebra
 Dmean (Gy) 32.0 (11.0–36.0) 27.0 (6.0–37.0) 28.5 (6.0–37.0) 0.293
 V30 (%) 54.5 (11.0–87.0) 61.0 (6.5–72.0) 59.5 (7.0–72.0) 0.987
 V35 (%) 37.5 (6.0–60.0) 46.5 (4.5–56.5) 44.5 (5.0–58.0) 0.987
 V40 (%) 22.0 (2.0–30.0) 15.5 (2.0–37.0) 17.0 (2.0–36.0) 0.597
 HUs 188.3 (161.5–205.7) 214.7 (189.5–235.7) 209.7 (187.1–233.2) 0.003

Values are presented as median (IQR).

HUs, Hounsfield units; VCF, vertebral compression fracture; Dmean, mean dose; V30, volume that received a dose of 30 Gy or more; V35, volume that received a dose of 35 Gy or more; V40, volume that received a dose of 40 Gy or more; IQR, interquartile range.

a)Calculated by the Mann-Whitney U test.

Table 4.
Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of variables predicting VCFs
Univariate
Multivariate
Odds ratio 95% CI p-value Odds ratio 95% CI p-value
Age 4.986 1.649–15.076 0.004 1.040 0.970–1.115 0.272
Sex
 Male 1 1
 Female 2.680 1.127–6.372 0.026 2.417 0.702–8.322 0.162
History of smoking
 Yes 1 1
 No 2.821 1.121–7.099 0.028 1.067 0.242–4.693 0.932
T10 HUs 0.973 0.953–0.994 0.011 0.993 0.958–1.029 0.684
T11 HUs 0.968 0.945–0.993 0.011 1.003 0.950–1.060 0.902
T12 HUs 0.965 0.942–0.988 0.003 0.965 0.942–0.989 0.004
L1 HUs 0.971 0.950–0.993 0.011 1.015 0.971–1.062 0.507
L2 HUs 0.968 0.947–0.989 0.004 0.975 0.932–1.021 0.282

VCF, vertebral compression fracture; CI, confidence interval; HUs, Hounsfield units.

Table 5.
Impact of T12 HU values on VCF incidence stratified by age and sex
T12 HUs
p-valuea)
VCF No VCF
Age (year)
 <58 178.1 (168.3–190.2) 215.4 (200.8–236.5) 0.044
 ≥58 186.7 (170.7–203.3) 217.9 (179.4–232.1) 0.017
Sex
 Male 182.4 (174.6–189.6) 218.0 (194.9–236.1) 0.015
 Female 183.3 (170.5–212.1) 214.6 (194.6–227.1) 0.042

Values are presented as median (IQR).

HUs, Hounsfield units; VCF, vertebral compression fracture; IQR, interquartile range.

a)Calculated by the Mann-Whitney U test.

References

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:209–49.
crossref pmid pdf
2. Guan WL, He Y, Xu RH. Gastric cancer treatment: recent progress and future perspectives. J Hematol Oncol 2023;16:57.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
3. Smyth EC, Nilsson M, Grabsch HI, van Grieken NC, Lordick F. Gastric cancer. Lancet 2020;396:635–48.
crossref pmid
4. Lee J, Lim DH, Kim S, et al. Phase III trial comparing capecitabine plus cisplatin versus capecitabine plus cisplatin with concurrent capecitabine radiotherapy in completely resected gastric cancer with D2 lymph node dissection: the ARTIST trial. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:268–73.
crossref pmid
5. Cats A, Jansen EP, van Grieken NC, et al. Chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy after surgery and preoperative chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer (CRITICS): an international, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:616–28.
crossref pmid
6. Park SH, Lim DH, Sohn TS, et al. A randomized phase III trial comparing adjuvant single-agent S1, S-1 with oxaliplatin, and postoperative chemoradiation with S-1 and oxaliplatin in patients with node-positive gastric cancer after D2 resection: the ARTIST 2 trial. Ann Oncol 2021;32:368–74.
crossref pmid
7. Macdonald JS, Smalley SR, Benedetti J, et al. Chemoradiotherapy after surgery compared with surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. N Engl J Med 2001;345:725–30.
crossref pmid
8. Smalley SR, Benedetti JK, Haller DG, et al. Updated analysis of SWOG-directed intergroup study 0116: a phase III trial of adjuvant radiochemotherapy versus observation after curative gastric cancer resection. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2327–33.
crossref pmid pmc
9. Stiekema J, Trip AK, Jansen EP, et al. Does adjuvant chemoradiotherapy improve the prognosis of gastric cancer after an r1 resection? Results from a Dutch cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22:581–8.
crossref pmid pdf
10. Oh HJ, Lim CH, Yoon BH, et al. Fracture after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a long-term follow-up observational study. Eur J Cancer 2017;72:28–36.
crossref pmid
11. Oh HJ, Yoon BH, Ha YC, et al. The change of bone mineral density and bone metabolism after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2020;31:267–75.
crossref pmid pdf
12. D'Oronzo S, Stucci S, Tucci M, Silvestris F. Cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL): pathogenesis and clinical implications. Cancer Treat Rev 2015;41:798–808.
crossref pmid
13. Stava CJ, Jimenez C, Hu MI, Vassilopoulou-Sellin R. Skeletal sequelae of cancer and cancer treatment. J Cancer Surviv 2009;3:75–88.
crossref pmid pdf
14. Higham CE, Faithfull S. Bone halth and pelvic radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2015;27:668–78.
crossref pmid
15. Okoukoni C, Farris M, Hughes RT, et al. Radiation-induced bone toxicity. Curr Stem Cell Rep 2017;3:333–41.
crossref pdf
16. Wydmanski J, Polanowski P, Tukiendorf A, Maslyk B. Radiation-induced injury of the exocrine pancreas after chemoradiotherapy for gastric cancer. Radiother Oncol 2016;118:535–9.
crossref pmid
17. Webb GJ, Brooke R, De Silva AN. Chronic radiation enteritis and malnutrition. J Dig Dis 2013;14:350–7.
crossref pmid
18. Yaprak G, Gemici C, Temizkan S, Ozdemir S, Dogan BC, Seseogullari OO. Osteoporosis development and vertebral fractures after abdominal irradiation in patients with gastric cancer. BMC Cancer 2018;18:972.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
19. Yaprak G, Gemici C, Seseogullari OO, Karabag IS, Cini N. CT Derived hounsfield unit: an easy way to determine osteoporosis and radiation related fracture risk in irradiated patients. Front Oncol 2020;10:742.
crossref pmid pmc
20. Pentecost RL, Murray RA, Brindley HH. Fatigue, iinsufficiency, and pathologic fractures. JAMA 1964;187:1001–4.
crossref pmid
21. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Johansson H, McCloskey E. FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int 2008;19:385–97.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
22. Oh D, Huh SJ. Insufficiency fracture after radiation therapy. Radiat Oncol J 2014;32:213–20.
crossref pmid pmc
23. Lee SJ, Graffy PM, Zea RD, Ziemlewicz TJ, Pickhardt PJ. Future osteoporotic fracture risk related to lumbar vertebral trabecular attenuation measured at routine body CT. J Bone Miner Res 2018;33:860–7.
crossref pmid pdf
24. Uezono H, Tsujino K, Moriki K, et al. Pelvic insufficiency fracture after definitive radiotherapy for uterine cervical cancer: retrospective analysis of risk factors. J Radiat Res 2013;54:1102–9.
crossref pmid pmc
25. Ishikawa K, Yamashiro T, Ariga T, et al. Predictive factors of posttreatment fracture by definitive radiotherapy for uterine cervical cancer. Jpn J Radiol 2021;39:93–9.
crossref pmid pdf
26. Fujii K, Sakanaka K, Uozumi R, et al. Association of chemoradiotherapy with thoracic vertebral fractures in patients with esophageal cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2013952.
crossref pmid pmc
27. Oh H, Yoon BH, Park JW, et al. The risk of osteoporotic fracture in gastric cancer survivors: total gastrectomy versus subtotal gastrectomy versus endoscopic treatment. Gastric Cancer 2023;26:814–22.
crossref pmid pdf
28. Salcedo MP, Sood AK, Jhingran A, et al. Pelvic fractures and changes in bone mineral density after radiotherapy for cervical, endometrial, and vaginal cancer: a prospective study of 239 women. Cancer 2020;126:2607–13.
crossref pmid pdf
29. Ramlov A, Pedersen EM, Rohl L, et al. Risk factors for pelvic insufficiency fractures in locally advanced cervical cancer following intensity modulated radiation ttherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017;97:1032–9.
crossref pmid
30. Yamamoto K, Nagao S, Suzuki K, et al. Pelvic fractures after definitive and postoperative radiotherapy for cervical cancer: a retrospective analysis of risk factors. Gynecol Oncol 2017;147:585–8.
crossref pmid
31. Tokumaru S, Toita T, Oguchi M, et al. Insufficiency fractures after pelvic radiation therapy for uterine cervical cancer: an analysis of subjects in a prospective multi-institutional trial, and cooperative study of the Japan Radiation Oncology Group (JAROG) and Japanese Radiation Oncology Study Group (JROSG). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;84:e195–200.
crossref pmid
32. Igdem S, Alco G, Ercan T, et al. Insufficiency fractures after pelvic radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;77:818–23.
crossref pmid
33. Kim HJ, Boland PJ, Meredith DS, et al. Fractures of the sacrum after chemoradiation for rectal carcinoma: incidence, risk factors, and radiographic evaluation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;84:694–9.
crossref pmid
34. Uyterlinde W, Chen C, Belderbos J, et al. Fractures of thoracic vertebrae in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma treated with intensity modulated radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2016;118:437–41.
crossref pmid
35. Otani K, Teshima T, Ito Y, et al. Risk factors for vertebral compression fractures in preoperative chemoradiotherapy with gemcitabine for pancreatic cancer. Radiother Oncol 2016;118:424–9.
crossref pmid
36. Wu XQ, Zhang TY, Yang F, et al. Association of radiotherapy with thoracic vertebral fractures in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2023;102:e35304.
crossref pmid pmc
37. Yang G, Wang H, Wu Z, Shi Y, Zhao Y. Prediction of osteoporosis and osteopenia by routine computed tomography of the lumbar spine in different regions of interest. J Orthop Surg Res 2022;17:454.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
38. Li YL, Wong KH, Law MW, et al. Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis in abdominal computed tomography for Chinese population. Arch Osteoporos 2018;13:76.
crossref pmid pdf
39. Vadera S, Osborne T, Shah V, Stephenson JA. Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis by abdominal CT in a British population. Insights Imaging 2023;14:57.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
40. Pickhardt PJ, Pooler BD, Lauder T, del Rio AM, Bruce RJ, Binkley N. Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using abdominal computed tomography scans obtained for other indications. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:588–95.
crossref pmid pmc
41. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013;310:2191–4.
crossref pmid
42. Tepper JE, Foote RL, Michalski JM. Gunderson and Tepper's clinical radiation oncology. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2021.

43. Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC. Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 1993;8:1137–48.
crossref pmid pdf
44. Wade SW, Strader C, Fitzpatrick LA, Anthony MS, O'Malley CD. Estimating prevalence of osteoporosis: examples from industrialized countries. Arch Osteoporos 2014;9:182.
crossref pmid pdf
45. Blake GM, Fogelman I. The role of DXA bone density scans in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. Postgrad Med J 2007;83:509–17.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
TOOLS
PDF Links  PDF Links
PubReader  PubReader
ePub Link  ePub Link
XML Download  XML Download
Full text via DOI  Full text via DOI
Download Citation  Download Citation
  Print
Share:      
METRICS
0
Crossref
0
Scopus
667
View
42
Download
Related article
Editorial Office
Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center,
Proton Therapy Center, B2, 81, Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea
Tel : +82-2-3410-3617
E-mail: rojeditor@gmail.com, roj@kosro.or.kr
Copyright © The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology.                      Developed in M2PI
Close layer
prev next