1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Patients and Methods
Representative CT imaging and region of interest placement with scintigraphy correlation. A and C, Axial contrast-enhanced CT demonstrating a benign enostosis. The circular region of interest is placed strictly at the visual epicenter (maximum sclerosis), maintaining a peripheral buffer to avoid partial volume averaging (mean HU: > 1000); B and D, Axial contrast-enhanced CT demonstrating an osteoblastic metastasis in a thoracic vertebral body with identical epicenter-focused region of interest placement (mean HU: ~575); E, Corresponding 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy for the metastatic lesion demonstrates intense focal radiotracer uptake confirming malignancy.
4. Results
4.1. Patient-Level Demographics
4.2. Lesion-Level Characteristics and Distribution
4.3. Diagnostic Performance of CT Hounsfield Unit Attenuation
Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis for the performance of mean CT attenuation. Receiver Operating Characteristic curve evaluating the diagnostic performance of mean computed tomography attenuation, measured in Hounsfield Units. The area under the curve of 0.984 (95% confidence interval: 0.975 - 0.993) confirms that quantitative Hounsfield Unit measurement is a highly reliable tool for distinguishing malignant sclerotic metastases from benign enostoses.
4.4. Influence of Anatomical Location on Mineralization
| Variables | Lesions (n) | Mean HU (± SD) | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spine | 286 | 680.1 ± 404.8 | — |
| Pelvis | 299 | 702.5 ± 203.2 | 0.421 |
| Rib/Sternum | 198 | 733.5 ± 198.1 | 0.141 |
| Long Bones | 76 | 677.7 ± 187.9 | 0.971 |
| Skull | 1 | 910.9 | N/A |
Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; GEE, Generalized Estimating Equations; HU, Hounsfield Units; N/A, not available; SD, standard deviation.
a Mean CT attenuation, measured in HU, and SD are categorized by anatomical location for all confirmed metastatic lesions (n = 860). Comparative analysis was performed using GEE with the axial skeleton (spine) as the reference group to account for within-patient clustering.
4.5. Correlation Between Biological Markers and Lesion Density
Relationship between Gleason score and metastatic lesion density. Scatter plot illustrating the relationship between primary tumor Gleason score and the mean Hounsfield Units of individual metastatic lesions (n = 860). Although the unadjusted raw data display a visual upward trend, Generalized Estimating Equations adjusting for within-patient clustering revealed that this relationship was not statistically significant (P = 0.098).
Biological dissociation between systemic prostate-specific antigen and metastatic lesion density. Scatter plot illustrating the lack of correlation between systemic prostate-specific antigen levels (measured in ng/mL) and the mean Hounsfield Units of individual metastatic foci (n = 860). Generalized Estimating Equations analysis adjusting for within-patient clustering confirmed no significant correlation (P = 0.301).







