Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry-based assessment of male patients using standardized bone density values and a national reference database.

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements from different manufacturers provide different bone mineral density (BMD) values and derived T-scores and Z-scores. These differences result partly from technical differences in the algorithms for the determination of bone mineral content and bone area and partly from the use of different manufacturer-derived reference databases. The present study was to implement a uniform expression of BMD in all male patients by using standardized BMD (sBMD) values and referring to a newly established national male reference sample. In 8 bone densitometry centers throughout Belgium 229 young healthy men were measured on Hologic (Bedford, MA) or GE-Lunar (Madison, WI) bone densitometers. Quality control procedures were implemented and site cross-calibration performed using the European Spine Phantom. Absolute BMD values were converted to standardized values by validated formulas (sBMD). Clinically acceptable between-center differences were noted. No discrepancy was observed in terms of mean sBMD and standard deviations at the lumbar spine and proximal femur between the Belgian and the US reference populations. Region-specific sBMD thresholds for the diagnosis of male osteoporosis were calculated. The current data provide a basis to implement a nation-wide, uniform expression of BMD in male patients and allow harmonization of the BMD-based diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in men.     

Comparison of Differences in Bone Mineral Density Measurement With 3 Hologic Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Scan Modes

Bone mineral density (BMD) measurement using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is considered a diagnostic parameter for osteoporosis by the World Health Organization (WHO). DXA densitometers have different scanning modes for BMD measurements, although the specific scanning modes vary based upon the manufacturer. For DXA machines manufactured by Hologic, which are used globally, a range of scanning modes exist, including but not limited to (in order of decreasing spatial resolution) Array, Fast Array, and Express Array. Only a handful of prior studies have compared the reproducibility of BMD measurements across scan modes. The present study aimed to add to this body of literature by investigating the differences in BMD measured between 3 scanning modes in Hologic DXA machines at 19 different health centers. As part of cross-calibration activities for two multi-center studies in China measuring BMD, the European spine phantom (ESP, 1.000 g/cm²) was scanned on 19 different Hologic DXA machines. To measure differences in BMD between the 3 scan modes most commonly found on the Hologic models available (i.e., Array, Fast Array, Express Array), the ESP measurement was performed 10 times for each scan mode on each Hologic DXA machine. One-sample t test was used to compare the average difference between the measured ESP results of the 3 scanning modes at each hospital and reference ESP values. Single factor analysis of variance was performed to compare the average differences between the pairs of scanning modes using the reference ESP. Statistically significant differences between the measured ESP results with reference ESP values were found with each scanning mode at 19 hospitals (all p values <0.05). Consistent with this finding, differences in average BMD between the Array mode and Fast Array mode were invariably the smallest compared to differences seen between the other two pairs of scan modes. Significant differences were observed between average ESP BMD for the Array and Express Array scan modes (0.971 ± 0.013 vs 0.935 ± 0.027, p < 0.001), and between Fast Array and Express Array scan modes (0.972 ± 0.012 vs 0.935 ± 0.027, p < 0.001). However, no significant difference in average ESP BMD was observed between the Array and Fast Array scan modes (0.971 ± 0.013 vs 0.972 ± 0.012, p = 0.997). The selection of ideal scanning mode requires a balance of scanning time, radiation exposure, and measurement accuracy. In this ex vivo study, the Fast Array scanning mode appeared to be a reasonable choice compared with Array and Express Array for BMD measurements by Hologic DXA. Future in vivo studies can help guide the clinical application of these findings.     

Densitometer type and impact on risk assessment for osteoporosis.

Studies have shown a high correlation between measurements of bone mineral density (BMD) obtained on differentdual-energy X-ray absorptiometry machines. Challenger osteodensitometers (Diagnostic Medical System [DMS],Montpellier, France) are becoming widely used but little is known about their clinical performance. The aim of this study was to compare BMD measurements and the resulting patient classification based on T-scores obtained on a DMS Challenger device to those obtained on Hologic 4500A (Bedford, MA) device. Fifty-three volunteers were studied.The BMD of the spine and of the hip were simultaneously measured on both densitometers. BMD values obtained on the Challenger were significantly higher than those obtained with the Hologic QDR4500 (p<0.001). The correlations coefficients between the Hologic QDR4500 and the DMS Challenger measured BMDs were r=0.70 at the femoral neck, r=0.70 at the trochanter, and r=0.83 at the spine (p<0.001). Among the 35 postmenopausal women, there was discordance in the WHO T-score-based classification in 28 subjects (80%) at the spine, 18 subjects (52%) at the femoral neck, and 14 subjects (42%) at the trochanter. The intermachine agreement was low: The kappa score was -0.10 at the spine, 0.2 at the femoral neck, and 0.3 at the trochanter. In conclusion, this study cautions against the use of non established densitometers that leads to underdiagnosis of patients and, subsequently, to inappropriate treatment strategies.     

Definition of a population-specific DXA reference standard in Italian women: the Densitometric Italian Normative Study (DINS)

Osteoporosis is currently defined on the basis of the T-score by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Despite its limitations, this definition is applied worldwide. However, the normal values provided by manufacturers may not be fully representative of specific local populations. So far, there are no normative data in the Italian population using Hologic densitometers. The Densitometric Italian Normative Study (DINS) is an ongoing multi-center study that aims to establish reference values for bone densitometry with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in the male and female Italian population. In this paper we report the results of the lumbar vertebrae (L2–L4) and proximal femur in 1,622 women aged 20–79 years. Bone mineral density (BMD) was determined using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) on Hologic bone densitometers (Hologic, Waltham, Mass.). Most of the subjects were examined with a QDR 4500. The BMD of the lumbar vertebrae was virtually constant between 20 and 49 years (test for trend: P=0.66); the BMD values between 20–45 in premenopausal women (mean 1.036; SD 0.109 g/cm²) were thus defined as the peak bone mass values, significantly lower compared to the Hologic reference curve (mean 1.079, SD 0.11 g/cm²). The mean BMD values of the femoral neck were virtually identical to those of the NHANES study in the first 3 decades; after the age of 50 the BMD values were slightly greater than those of the NHANES subject. The subject classification according to the WHO criteria was similar using the DINS and NHANES reference values for the femur; for the spine, the Hologic reference values classified a larger proportion of women as osteoporotic (21 vs. 16%) or osteopenic (42 vs. 38%) compared to DINS.     

Cross-Calibration of Prodigy and Horizon A Densitometers and Precision of the Horizon A Densitometer

We performed this study to enable a reliable transition for clinical study participants and patients from a GE Lunar Prodigy to a Hologic Horizon A dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner and to assess the reproducibility of measurements made on the new DXA scanner. Forty-five older adults had one spine, hip, and total body scan on a Prodigy dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner and 2 spine, hip, and total body scans, with repositioning, on a new Hologic Horizon A DXA scanner. Linear regression models were used to derive cross calibration equations for each measure on the 2 scanners. Precision (group root-mean-square average coefficient of variation) of bone mineral density (BMD) of the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine (L1-L4), and total body fat, bone, and lean mass, appendicular lean mass, and trabecular bone score (TBS) was assessed using the International Society of Clinical Densitometry's (ISCD's) Advanced Precision Calculation Tool. Correlation coefficients for the BMD and body composition measures on the 2 scanners ranged from 0.94 to 0.99 (p<0.001). When compared with values on the Prodigy, mean BMD on the Horizon A was lower at each skeletal site (0.136 g/cm² lower at the femoral neck and 0.169 g/cm² lower at the lumbar spine (L1-4)), fat mass was 0.47 kg lower, and lean mass was 4.50 kg higher. Precision of the Horizon A scans was 1.60% for total hip, 1.94% for femoral neck, and 1.25% for spine (L1-4) BMD. Precision of TBS was 1.67%. Precision of total body fat mass was 2.16%, total body lean mass was 1.26%, appendicular lean mass was 1.97%, and total body bone mass was 1.12%. The differences in BMD and body composition values on the 2 scanners illustrate the importance of cross-calibration to account for these differences when transitioning clinical study participants and patients from one scanner to another.     

Cross-Calibration and Comparison of Variability in 2 Bone Densitometers in a Research Setting: The Framingham Experience

New technology introduced over time results in changes in densitometers during longitudinal studies of bone mineral density (BMD). This requires that a cross-calibration process be completed to translate measurements from the old densitometer to the new one. Previously described cross-calibration methods for research settings have collected single measures on each densitometer and used linear regression to estimate cross-calibration corrections. Thus, these methods may produce corrections that have limited precision and underestimate the variability in converted BMD values. Furthermore, most of the previous studies have included small samples recruited from specialized populations. Increasing the sample size, obtaining multiple measures on each machine, and using linear mixed models to account for between- and within-subject variability may improve cross-calibration estimates. The purpose of this study was to conduct an in vivo cross-calibration of a Lunar DPX-L (Lunar Corporation, Madison, WI) with a Lunar Prodigy densitometer (GE Medical Systems Lunar, Madison, WI) using a sample of 249 healthy volunteers who were scanned twice on each densitometer, without repositioning, at both the femur and spine. Scans were analyzed using both automated and manual placement of regions of interest. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Bland-Altman plots were used to examine possible differences between repeat scans within and across densitometers. We used linear mixed models to determine the cross-calibration equations for the femoral neck, trochanter, total hip, and lumbar spine (L2–L4) regions. Results using automated and manual placement of the regions of interest did not differ significantly. The DPX-L densitometer exhibited larger median absolute differences in the BMD values by repeat scans of femoral neck (0.016 vs 0.012, p = 0.1) and trochanter (0.011 vs. 0.009, p = 0.06) compared with the Prodigy densitometer. The Bland-Altman plots revealed no statistically significant linear relationship between the differences in paired measures between machines and mean BMD. In our large sample of healthy volunteers, we did detect systematic differences between the DPX-L and Prodigy densitometers. Our proposed cross-calibration method, which includes acquiring multiple measures and using linear mixed models, provides researchers with a more realistic estimate of the variance of cross-calibrated BMD measures, potentially reducing the chance of making a type I error in longitudinal studies of changes in BMD.     

A Comparison of Phantoms for Cross-Calibration of Lumbar Spine DXA

The aim of this project was to compare three phantoms used for cross-calibration of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers with an in vivo cross-calibration. The phantoms used were the Bona Fide Phantom (BFP), the European Spine Phantom (ESP) and the GE Lunar Aluminum Spine Phantom (ASP). The cross calibration was for L2–L4 lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) on a GE Lunar DPX-L and Hologic QDR 2000. The in vivo cross-calibration was obtained using 72 subjects (61 female, 11 male; mean age 49 years, range 14–84 years). The phantoms were measured 10 times without repositioning on both instruments. A further, long-term cross-calibration was obtained with the BFP over a 9 month period. The true linear relationship between the two instruments was calculated used a standardized principal components method. The mean residuals were calculated between each phantom cross-calibration line and the in vivo data to obtain a measure of the goodness of fit between the phantom cross-calibration and the in vivo data. There was no significant difference between the in vitro and in vivo cross-calibrations. The long-term BFP cross-calibration gave an in vitro cross-calibration that is closest to the in vivo cross-calibration in this group of subjects. When calculating Hologic QDR BMD from results on the GE Lunar DPX-L, the ASP underestimates Hologic QDR 2000 BMD by 4% at high BMD and overestimates by 4% at low BMD. The ESP cross-calibration overestimates Hologic QDR2000 BMD by 1% at high BMD and 4% at low BMD. The BFP performs best, overestimating Hologic QDR2000 BMD by between 1.2% and 1.8%, whilst the difference between the long-term BFP cross-calibration and the in vivo data is less than 1% over the range of BMD covered. Received: 19 October 2001 / Accepted: 9 July 2002     

A study of the long-term precision of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry bone densitometers and implications for the validity of the least-significant-change calculation

Introduction Short-term precision is often quoted and used as the most important performance parameter of a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner; however, long-term precision has a more profound impact on patient monitoring. Long-term precision refers to the combination of in-vivo precision errors and long-term equipment stability. Methods To monitor long-term equipment stability, a phantom was designed with four inserts ranging in bone-mineral density from 0.5 to 3.3 g/cm². This phantom was used to monitor the equipment stability of four modern fan-beam densitometers, two each from Hologic and GE/Lunar, over a 4-year period. Manufacturer-recommended quality assurance (QA) procedures were performed, and the scanners stayed within manufacturer-specified tolerances throughout the study. Results and conclusion During the 4-year period, the Hologic scanners were observed to cause clinically insignificant BMD shifts (maximum of 0.34%), whereas the GE/Lunar scanners revealed BMD shifts that were clinically significant (1.5% and 2.1%). As a result, using least-significant-change (LSC) calculations based only on short-term in-vivo precision studies for monitoring patients is not valid for the two GE/Lunar densitometers due to the poorer long-term stability they exhibited.     

Cross-calibration of DXA equipment: Upgrading from a hologic QDR 1000/W to a QDR 2000

Summary In this study, the cross-calibration of a fan beam DXA system (Hologic QDR-2000) to a pencil beam scanner from the same manufacturer (Hologic QDR-1000/W) is described. The scanners were calibrated by the manufacturer using the same anthropomorphic spine phantom at installation. To verify consistent machine calibration, a group of 69 female subjects, aged 46–75, had anteroposterior (AP) spine and proximal femur scans on the QDR-1000/W followed by pencil and array scans of the same sites on the QDR-2000 during the same visit. Many of the subjects had bilateral examinations of the proximal femur for a total of 123 hip scans. Pencil and array area, bone mineral content (BMC), and bone mineral density (BMD) from the QDR-2000 were compared with the values obtained on the QDR-1000/W, and linear regression equations were derived for relating the two instruments. At the spine, no differences were found between the QDR-1000/W BMD values and the QDR-2000 array BMD values. A slight difference between pencil beam modes was detected but was not deemed clinically significant. Linear regression models relating the QDR-2000 and QDR-1000/W AP spine BMD measurements showed correlation coefficients greater than 0.99, with slopes of 1.00, intercepts equivalent to zero, and small root mean square errors. Comparisons at the proximal femur showed equivalency at the femoral neck and trochanter regions for the two machines in pencil mode, but slight increases in BMC and BMD at the other femoral sites on the QDR-2000 in both pencil and array mode. Correlation coefficients were 0.97–0.99 for all measurement regions except for Ward's. Regression slopes relating the BMD for the femoral regions were 1.00–1.04, with intercepts not significantly different from zero and small residual errors. As with the spine, the differences were small enough that they were not of clinical significance. However, in longitudinal drug trials requiring highly precise determination of spinal and femoral BMD changes, these differences may be important.     

Discordance in lumbar spine T-scores and nonstandardization of standard deviations.

Previous studies have demonstrated differences in proximal femur bone mineral density T-scores depending on the reference range used. This subsequently was addressed by the recommended adoption of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III reference range. There is, however, no accepted reference range for interpretation of lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD), and the use of different reference populations by different manufacturers could result in inconsistencies in diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis. We compared lumbar spine BMD, as well as T- and Z-scores, in 59 women measured using Lunar DPXL and Norland Excel densitometers. BMD measured by the instruments was highly correlated (r = 0.98, p < 0.0001). The instruments however assigned significantly different values when BMD was expressed as T-scores. There were also significant differences in BMD assignments between instruments, when expressed as Z-scores. The observed differences relate to the different young normal mean, and SD employed in calculating the T- and Z scores. To conclude, in the lumbar spine, two commonly used DXA instruments provide comparable absolute values but there are significant differences in derived T-scores due to differences in manufacturer- specific reference ranges. There is a need for standardization of the reference ranges used in the lumbar spine.     

Discordance in DXA male reference ranges.

Previous studies have reported discordance in female lumbar spine and proximal femur dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) reference ranges. Although the NHANES III reference range is recommended for the proximal femur in males and females, there are no published data in men on the concordance or otherwise of the different manufacturer-specific lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) reference ranges. Potentially, the use of different reference populations by different manufacturers could result in inconsistencies in the diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis. We compared lumbar spine BMD, as well as T-scores and Z-scores, in 45 men scanned using Lunar DPXL and Norland Excel densitometers. The BMD measured by the two instruments was highly correlated (lumbar spine: r = 0.99, p < 0.0001). However, the two instruments assigned significantly different BMD T-scores. These differences relate primarily to the different standard deviations employed in the calculations. There were also significant differences when BMD was expressed with respect to age-matched values (Z-scores). This study shows that in men, as previously demonstrated in women, two commonly used DXA instruments provide comparable lumbar spine standardized BMD, but there are significant differences in derived T-scores because of differences in the manufacturer-specific reference ranges. Standardization of lumbar spine reference ranges in men should be a high priority.     

Population Bone Mineral Density Measurements for Chinese Women and Men in Hong Kong

The aim of the study was to establish population ranges of bone mineral density (BMD) for Hong Kong Chinese men and women for the Hologic QDR 2000 bone densitometer, to compare these values with the manufacturer’s reference ranges, to compare these values with population ranges for women obtained for the Norland X26 bone densitometer, and to examine variations between the two densitometers. The subjects were 164 men aged 40–79 years and 436 women aged 20–89 years, who were all ethnic Chinese, recruited from volunteers, social centers for the elderly and general practice clinics. BMD in women began to decline rapidly between ages 50 and 79 years, averaging about 10% loss per decade from the young adult (20–29 years) mean. The percentage losses from young adult mean values in the spine, femroal neck, trochanter and total femur were 23%, 30%, 31% and 33%, respectively, from 20 to 79 years. In the ninth decade no further decrease in BMD occurred with the exception of a further 4% at the hip sites. In men, no decrease in spine BMD occurred between 40 and 70 years. Compared with BMD in the fourth decade, 10%, 13%, and 11% of BMD was lost at the femoral neck, trochanter and total femur, respectively, by the seventh decade. These values show differences compared with the manufacturer’s reference ranges for Caucasians and Japanese. BMD values for the spine were comparable between Hologic and Norland densitometers, but Hologic values for femoral neck and trochanteric regions were lower than the Norland values. Data provided by this study may thus be used as normative values for the Hologic QDR2000 bone densitometer, instead of values provided by the manufacturer. BMD values at the hip sites are not interchangeable between Norland and Hologic bone densitometers, and estimation of numbers of the population with osteoporosis will depend on the model of densitometer used. Received: 31 May 2000 / Accepted: 31 October 2000     

In vitro comparability of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) bone densitometers

Summary Six Hologic QDR-1000 DEXA bone densitometers at different centers across the USA were compared to determine the intermachine variability. Nine scans in succession were acquired on each machine using a single anthropomorphic lumbar spine phantom (manufactured by Hologic). Values for BMC, area, and BMD were recorded for each measurement. Means, standard deviations (SD), and coefficients of variation (CV) were calculated for each machine. All the CVs (BMC, area, BMD) were less than 1% (range 0.3%–0.6%). The CV of the means at the six sites were 0.4%, 0.6%, and 0.5% for BMC, area, and BMD, respectively. Although several significant differences for BMC, area, and BMD were noted by ANOVA between machines at different sites, the difference between the highest and lowest means of the individual machines was only 1.1%, 1.31%, and 1.07% for BMC, area, and BMD. The small variations between the DEXA systems are encouraging for researchers involved in multicenter trials in which data are pooled.     

Accuracy and Precision of 62 Bone Densitometers Using a European Spine Phantom

Dual-energy absorptiometry (DXA) is widely used for bone mineral density measurements. Different types of devices are available. Differences between devices from either the same manufacturer or different manufacturers can lead to difficulties in clinical practice when patients are followed on different machines. We calculated the accuracy and precision of 62 DXA devices from two manufacturers (51 Hologic, 11 Lunar) using a European Spine Phantom (ESP, semi-anthropomorphic). The ESP was measured 5 times on each device without repositioning. Accuracy was assessed by comparing bone mineral density (BMD, g/cm²) values measured on each device with the actual value of the phantom. Precision was assessed by the coefficient of variation (CVsd), using the root mean square average. The limits of agreement were estimated from the differences between each replicate measurement of BMD and the estimated true value for a particular manufacturer, according to Bland and Altman. The results confirm the difference between devices from different manufacturers (18.5%). Mean CVsd values were 0.57% and 0.64% for Hologic and Lunar respectively. The limits of agreement among devices from the same manufacturer were 0.026 g/cm² and 0.025 g/cm² for Hologic and Lunar respectively. Differences in extreme results between devices from the same manufacturer were on average 5.4% and 3.6% for Hologic and Lunar respectively. Results of different devices from the same manufacturer are highly comparable, although unpredictable differences exist that may be clinically relevant. Received: 12 June 1998 / Accepted: 20 November 1998     

Differential effects of hormone replacement therapy on bone mineral density and axial transmission ultrasound measurements in cortical bone

The menopause has a large effect on bone density, and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) has been shown to be an effective treatment for preventing postmenopausal bone loss. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of HRT use on speed of sound (SOS) measurements at the radius, tibia, phalanx, and metatarsal with bone mineral density (BMD) measurements of the lumbar spine and proximal femur. The study population consisted of 278 healthy premenopausal women, 194 healthy postmenopausal women, and 126 healthy postmenopausal women currently receiving HRT for one or more years. SOS measurements were taken at the radius, tibia, phalanx, and metatarsal using the Sunlight Omnisense, and BMD measurements at the lumbar spine and proximal femur using Hologic QDR-4500 densitometers. Z-scores were calculated using the postmenopausal control group. Z-score differences between the postmenopausal controls and HRT group, for the entire group and with the HRT group subdivided into three groups based on duration of HRT usage, were calculated. Significant postmenopausal bone loss was found for all SOS and BMD measurements. A positive effect of HRT usage was found for all SOS measurement sites and lumbar spine BMD, although only the radius and tibia SOS and lumbar spine BMD reached statistical significance. The Z-score differences between the two groups were 0.44, 0.37, 0.15, and 0.26 for the radius, tibia, phalanx, and metatarsal SOS respectively, and 0.28, 0.00, and -0.03 for the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip BMD respectively. A clear effect of the duration of HRT use was seen for the radius measurements, the differences being less marked elsewhere. In conclusion, these results demonstrate a positive effect of HRT on SOS measurements at the radius and tibia and BMD measurements of the lumbar spine.     

Assessment of spinal and femoral bone density by dual X-ray absorptiometry: comparison of lunar and hologic instruments.

Clinical application of techniques for assessing bone mineral density (BMD) requires accurate and precise measurements that can be related to clearly defined normal ranges. In this study we investigated the clinical interpretation of BMD values in a group of individuals measured on the same day with two different dual-energy x-ray densitometers (Lunar DPX and Hologic QDR 1000). The BMD results were analyzed as absolute values in g/cm2 and with respect to young and age-specific normals as defined by each manufacturer. Absolute BMD values measured by the two instruments were highly correlated (lumbar spine r = 0.98, femoral neck r = 0.95; p less than 0.0001). In the lumbar spine, the two instruments assigned almost identical values when expressed as a percentage of age-matched values and as a percentage of young normals, despite a small but systematic difference between the values assigned for the latter index. In the femoral neck, however, there were significant differences in assignments between instruments, expressed both as a percentage of young normal (mean difference 6.2%) and with respect to age-matched values (mean difference 3.3%). In particular, in premenopausal subjects femoral neck values with the Hologic instrument were assigned significantly lower values. This study shows effective comparability between these two instruments for absolute and relative values for the lumbar spine, as well as for absolute values at the femoral neck, but important differences for normality assignments at the femoral neck. These latter differences may produce bias in the "diagnosis" of femoral neck osteoporosis and may have important implications for clinical decision making.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Comparison of pencil-beam and fan-beam DXA systems.

Patients attending a routine bone densitometry clinic were scanned on two different densitometers on the same day using a pencil-beam (Hologic QDR1000W) and fan-beam (Hologic QDR4500W) machine. Subjects were scanned at the lumbar spine site and or the proximal femur. The differences in bone mineral density (BMD) between the fan-beam and pencil-beam (QDR4500W-QDR1000W) were determined for all pairs of scans. The mean difference in BMD was also calculated to see if there was a systematic bias between the machines. The mean difference in BMD was -8 mg/cm2 and 25 mg/cm2 at the spine and total hip, respectively. The individual differences in BMD between the two machines were examined to assess if they were significantly greater than measurement error. The percentage of scans classified as significantly different was calculated for the difference in BMD before and after adjusting for the mean difference in BMD. The percentage of individuals classified as significantly different ranged from 17.1-45.0% before adjustment, at the spine and total hip, respectively, and 16.1-22.6% after adjustment. From a clinical perspective, this degree of misclassification is probably unacceptable. These results suggest that scans obtained from a QDR4500W fan-beam system and QDR1000W pencil-beam system should not be compared, with or without adjustment for systematic bias.     

Densitometry of the radius using single and dual energy absorptiometry

Though spinal and femoral measurements are typically preferred for evaluating skeletal density, an abundance of forearm data exists, primarily from single photon absorptiometry (SPA) devices. Most dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanners are capable of scanning the forearm and provide analysis tools to duplicate conventional SPA measurements. In this study, we have compared the radius density measurements from three commonly available densitometers: a Norland 278 SPA, a Lunar DPX-L, and a Hologic 1000/W. Radius bone mineral density (BMD) on the nondominant forearm was measured in 28 volunteers (21 women and 7 men) aged 24–78, with an average age of 51±17 years. Values were compared and regression relationships derived at corresponding measurement sites. SPA and DXA BMD values were found to be highly correlated (r=0.99) with small standard errors (0.014 g/cm²–0.021 g/cm²), though significant absolute differences were observed at most measurement regions. Correlation slopes ranged from 0.85 to 1.04, with intercepts from 0.01 to 0.08 g/cm². Using the resultant regression equations, SPA BMD values can be converted to DXA values with an expected error of roughly 3%. DXA BMD can also be interconverted between Lunar and Hologic with a similar expected error. In situations where this level of imprecision is acceptable, patient forearm measurements obtained on different systems can be interconverted.     

Comparing BMD Results Between Two Similar DXA Systems Using the Generalized Least Significant Change

One of the long-standing frustrations of clinical densitometry practice is not being able to compare bone mineral density (BMD) measures taken on different densitometers and know if the difference represents a true change. Recently, a method for comparing measures on different systems was published. This method, called the generalized least significant change (GLSC) requires after a procedure to quantify the precision of both systems as well as the in vivo cross-calibration relationship when there is a difference in the technology of the systems. We followed this procedure when a Hologic QDR-4500A was replaced with a Hologic Discovery/W even though these systems would be similar if not identical for hip and spine measures. Thirty participants were scanned twice on each system at the hip and spine. We found that the precisions of each system were similar and the differences in the average BMD values from the spine phantom and in vivo measures for the total spine, total hip, and neck regions were less than 1%. However, the correlation coefficients ranged from 0.96 to 0.98. The magnitude of change needed for significance was typically twice as large for intersystem scan (6–10%) comparisons than intrasystem (3–6%). In summary, we have presented an example of how the GLSC is calculated and used in a clinical practice. The results show that there is a substantial loss in sensitivity to change when comparing scans taken on different systems even in this case of similar technology. A revision of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry's policies for comparing scans from systems of the same technology may be appropriate.     

Cross-calibration of liquid and solid QCT calibration standards: Corrections to the UCSF normative data

Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) has been shown to be a precise and sensitive method for evaluating spinal bone mineral density (BMD) and skeletal response to aging and therapy. Precise and accurate determination of BMD using QCT requires a calibration standard to compensate for and reduce the effects of beam-hardening artifacts and scanner drift. The first standards were based on dipotassium hydrogen phosphate (K₂HPO₄) solutions. Recently, several manufacturers have developed stable solid calibration standards based on calcium hydroxyapatite (CHA) in water-equivalent plastic. Due to differences in attenuating properties of the liquid and solid standards, the calibrated BMD values obtained with each system do not agree. In order to compare and interpret the results obtained on both systems, cross-calibration measurements were performed in phantoms and patients using the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) liquid standard and the Image Analysis (IA) solid standard on the UCSF GE 9800 CT scanner. From the phantom measurements, a highly linear relationship was found between the liquid- and solid-calibrated BMD values. No influence on the cross-calibration due to simulated variations in body size or vertebral fat content was seen, though a significant difference in the cross-calibration was observed between scans acquired at 80 and 140 kVp. From the patient measurements, a linear relationship between the liquid (UCSF) and solid (IA) calibrated values was derived for GE 9800 CT scanners at 80 kVp (IA=[1.15×UCSF]-7.32). The UCSF normative database for women and men obtained with the liquid standard was corrected for use with the solid standard. Proper procedures for cross-calibrating QCT measurements and the appropriate uses of normative data are discussed.