POS1111 DIAGNOSIS OF OSTEOPOROSIS USING RADIOFREQUENCY ECHOGRAPHIC MULTI SPECTROMETRY (REMS) AT THE LUMBAR SPINE IN PATIENTS WITH DIFFERENT BODY MASS INDEX

Background: In recent years, the technology based on analysis of raw ultrasound signals, Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS), has been validated against Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) for diagnosis osteoporosis and risk fracture prediction. Objectives: The aim this multicenter observational study was to evaluate diagnostic performance REMS with respect DXA in patients different body mass index (BMI) categories. Methods: inclusion criteria were: Caucasian women; age between 30 90 years; referral by their clinician spinal assessment; absence significant walking impairment; signed informed consent. Patients underwent scans at lumbar spine, according procedures described Di Paola et al. [1], including an a-posteriori quality check examinations order guarantee maximum reliability outputs. Three groups were considered BMI:: underweight (BMI<18.5 kg/m 2 ), normal weight (BMI?18.5 <25 overweight/obese (BMI?25 ). BMD values also stratified 3 categories: osteoporotic, osteopenic, or healthy. degree correlation quantified calculating Pearson’s coefficient ( r concordance assessed Cohen’s K considering REMS´s sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) negative (NPV) discriminating without calculated using outcomes as reference. same statistics accepting a 0.3 T-score tolerance borderline cases [1]. Results: Overall, 4282 enrolled and, after check, 3501 couples included analyses. Of these patients, 122 (3.5%) underweight, 1964 (56.1%) weight, 1415 (40.4%) overweight. results BMI stratification are reported Table 1. Conclusion: We observed excellent REMS-based performed from each category. These indicate that spine is suitable accurate tool BMI. References: [1]Di M Osteoporos Int. 2019 Feb;30(2):391-402. Diagnostic reference size. categories No Sens. Spec. PPV NPV Underweight 0.946 97.5 91.5 86.8 98.4 0.89 98.2 93.2 89.2 99.3 0.91 Normal 92.6 94.4 87.0 96.9 0.85 96.7 92.3 99.0 0.93 Overweight 0.930 86.7 95.8 84.8 96.4 0.82 96.3 97.8 92.1 Abbreviations : = index; Pearson coefficient; sensitivity; specificity; value; K. authors BC, ED, ADP, ML, MM, XN, DOC equal contributors listed alphabetical order. Disclosure Interests: None declared.