Vertebral Fractures and Morphometric Deformities

We read with interest the editorial by Cummings and Eastell,1 A History of Pivotal Advances in Clinical Research in Bone and Mineral Diseases, published in a recent issue of the JBMR. In discussing such advances, they include spinal morphometry, and specifically refer to and illustrate the Genant semiquantitative (GSQ) paradigm,2 although also referring to the algorithm-based qualitative (ABQ) method3 of vertebral evaluation in the diagnosis of osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs). Although in its day the GSQ method was a credible attempt at structured reporting, recent data suggest that GSQ grade 1 lesions, the most common, relate less well to bone density and fracture risk than comparable fractures diagnosed using the ABQ tool.4-6 Although morphometric methods may serve for understanding the epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures in large populations, it is much less certain that the GSQ method provides a basis for the care of individual patients. In a multidisciplinary context such as is served by this Journal, the endorsement of the GSQ method by the authors, without qualification, may well prove misleading. It is potentially invalid at the bedside and this should have been made explicit. We have observed a reluctance to give the presence of one or more vertebral fractures the importance they should be accorded because of confusion and ambiguity in the descriptive criteria and terminology used (eg, “wedging,” “deformity”) to define them. Perhaps the lack of a clear understanding of what might or might not constitute an OVF contributes to this disarray among radiologists and clinicians alike, again as noted recently by Szulc.7 Most of the many authors describing or reviewing “systems of morphometry,”8-12 such as in the current ASBMR primer,10 have cautioned that they are only to be used for epidemiological purposes. Moreover, most such reviews caution that positive findings should ideally be re-assessed by an “expert.” The danger, recognized by such constraints, is that of false-positive diagnoses from the clinical use of morphometry. In our experience, it is all too common for the iconic diagram provided by Dr. Genant to serve as a guide for the clinical evaluation of spinal images when that was not its intent. In the relevant article, Genant and colleagues2 were at pains to emphasize the importance of recognizing end-plate damage as evidence of OVF, but it has proved deceptively simple for readers to see only the diagram which Cummings and Eastell1 reproduce without noting these constraints. Historically the GSQ method was proposed as an attempt at structured diagnosis in fracture evaluation when such a concept was uncommon. Nevertheless it needs to be seen in perspective and it may have now outlived its usefulness. A great amount of admirable effort has gone into a structured understanding and diagnosis of atypical femoral fractures by the ASBMR.13 Those are, however, very rare events. Perhaps it is time to develop a comparable understanding of the much more common problem of OVF diagnosis to an extent the evidence allows. A taxonomy of such lesions is overdue. At present there are large differences in reported OVF incidence and prevalence for any given population. That fact probably reflects, at least in part, the method of diagnosis used, as much as any real insights into disease. None.