Universal standardization for dual X‐ray absorptiometry: Patient and phantom cross‐calibration results

The comparison of patient data among different dual x‐ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanners is complicated because no universally accepted cross‐calibration procedure or standard currently exists. This study was performed under the auspices of the International DXA Standardization Committee to establish appropriate cross‐calibration parameters. Posteroanterior (PA) lumbar spine measurements of 100 women, ages 20–80 years (mean 52.6 + 16, range of BMD = 0.4–1.6 g/cm2) were obtained on a Norland XR26 Mark II, a Lunar DPX‐L, and a Hologic QDR 2000 densitometer using standard procedures (pencil beam mode for all three scanners). Area, BMC, and BMD results from the different scanners were compared for all patients. In addition, the European spine phantom (ESP) and the European spine phantom prototype (ESP prototype), as well as standard phantoms from all three manufacturers, were evaluated on the three systems. To achieve universal scanner calibration, we used the intercept and slope of the patient's correlations and the value of the middle vertebra of the ESP as a reference point in a series of standardization formulas, and we have expressed the results as sBMD (mg/cm2). The correlations of the patients' spinal BMD values were excellent for each of the three scanner pairs. The average absolute difference in patient spinal BMD values (L2–4) between Hologic and Norland was 0.012 g/cm2 (1.3%); it was 0.113 g/cm2 (11.7%) between Hologic and Lunar and 0.118 g/cm2 (12.2%) between Norland and Lunar. The phantoms' regression lines approximated those of the patient regression lines, and the phantoms with only one measurement point were very close to the patients' regression lines. After applying the standardization formulas, the average absolute differences for the 100 patients were 28 mg/cm2 (2.7%) for Hologic/Norland, 23 mg/cm2 (2.2%) for Hologic/Lunar, and 29 mg/cm2 (2.8%) for Norland/Lunar. Average BMD results for the patients before correction were 0.972 g/cm2 for Hologic, 1.100 g/cm2 for Lunar, and 0.969 g/cm2 for Norland. After correction, sBMD results for patients were 1045 mg/cm2 for Hologic, 1047 mg/cm2 for Lunar, and 1043 mg/cm2 for Norland. The standardization approach as performed in our study provided compatibility of DXA results obtained on different scanners.

[1]  C C Glüer,et al.  Radiologic diagnosis of osteoporosis. Current methods and perspectives. , 1993, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[2]  Von Stetten Cross-calibration of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone densitometry systems , 1993 .

[3]  W. Kalender,et al.  Multicentre European COMAC-BME study on the standardisation of bone densitometry procedures. , 1993, Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine.

[4]  J. Eisman,et al.  Assessment of spinal and femoral bone density by Dual X‐Ray absorptiometry: Comparison of lunar and hologic instruments , 1992, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[5]  S. Cummings,et al.  Appendicular bone mineral and a woman's lifetime risk of hip fracture , 1992 .

[6]  H K Genant,et al.  Axial and appendicular bone density predict fractures in older women , 1992, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[7]  W A Kalender,et al.  A phantom for standardization and quality control in spinal bone mineral measurements by QCT and DXA: design considerations and specifications. , 1992, Medical Physics (Lancaster).

[8]  I. Fogelman,et al.  Measurement of bone mass. , 1992, Bone.

[9]  K Engelke,et al.  Noninvasive measurements of bone mass, structure, and strength: current methods and experimental techniques. , 1991, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  H. Genant,et al.  Measurement of bone mineral density: current status. , 1991, The American journal of medicine.

[11]  R H Gold,et al.  Osteoporosis and bone density measurement methods. , 1991, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[12]  C. Ribot,et al.  Precision and sensitivity of dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry in spinal osteoporosis , 1991 .

[13]  R. Mazess,et al.  Calibration of dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry for bone density , 1991, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[14]  E. Orwoll,et al.  Longitudinal precision of dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry in a multicenter study , 1991, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[15]  H K Genant,et al.  Osteoporosis. Current techniques and recent developments in quantitative bone densitometry. , 1991, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[16]  V. Matkovic,et al.  Factors that influence peak bone mass formation: a study of calcium balance and the inheritance of bone mass in adolescent females. , 1990, The American journal of clinical nutrition.

[17]  C. Hassager,et al.  Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry: a precise method of measuring bone mineral density in the lumbar spine. , 1990, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[18]  D. Sartoris,et al.  Dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry of the lumbar spine: clinical experience with two different systems. , 1990, Radiology.

[19]  H. Genant,et al.  Comparative assessment of dual-photon absorptiometry and dual-energy radiography. , 1990, Radiology.

[20]  I. Cullum,et al.  X-ray dual-photon absorptiometry: a new method for the measurement of bone density. , 1989, The British journal of radiology.

[21]  C C Glueer,et al.  Appropriate use of bone densitometry. , 1989, Radiology.

[22]  D Resnick,et al.  Dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry for bone densitometry: current status and perspective. , 1989, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  R. Morin,et al.  Comparison of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and dual photon absorptiometry for bone mineral measurements of the lumbar spine. , 1988, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[24]  R M Neer,et al.  Quantitative digital radiography versus dual photon absorptiometry of the lumbar spine. , 1988, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[25]  S. H. Kan,et al.  Lifetime fracture risk: an approach to hip fracture risk assessment based on bone mineral density and age. , 1988, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[26]  C Kimme-Smith,et al.  Mammographic dual-screen-dual-emulsion-film combination: visibility of simulated microcalcifications and effect on image contrast. , 1987, Radiology.

[27]  T. Hangartner The radiologic measurement of bone. , 1986, Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes.

[28]  P. Ross,et al.  Prediction of postmenopausal fracture risk with use of bone mineral measurements. , 1985, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.