Comparisons of Noninvasive Bone Mineral Measurements in Assessing Age‐Related Loss, Fracture Discrimination, and Diagnostic Classification

The purpose of this study was to examine the commonly available methods of noninvasively assessing bone mineral status across three defined female populations to examine their interrelationships, compare their respective abilities to reflect age‐ and menopause‐related bone loss, discriminate osteoporotic fractures, and classify patients diagnostically. A total of 47 healthy premenopausal (age 33 ± 7 years), 41 healthy postmenopausal (age 64 ± 9 years), and 36 osteoporotic postmenopausal (age 70 ± 6 years) women were examined with the following techniques: (1) quantitative computed tomography of the L1–L4 lumbar spine for trabecular (QCT TRAB BMD) and integral (QCT INTG BMD) bone mineral density (BMD); (2) dual X‐ray absorptiometry of the L1–L4 posterior‐anterior (DXA PA BMD) and L2–L4 lateral (DXA LAT BMD) lumbar spine, of the femoral neck (DXA NECK BMD) and trochanter (DXA TROC BMD), and of the ultradistal radius (DXA UD BMD) for integral BMD; (3) peripheral QCT of the distal radius for trabecular BMD (pQCT TRAB BMD) and cortical bone mineral content (BMC) (pQCT CORT BMC); (4) two radiographic absorptiometric techniques of the metacarpal (RA METC BMD) and phalanges (RA PHAL BMD) for integral BMD; and (5) two quantitative ultrasound devices (QUS) of the calcaneus for speed of sound (SOS CALC) and broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA CALC). In general, correlations ranged from (r = 0.10−0.93) among different sites and techniques. We found that pQCT TRAB BMD correlated poorly (r ≤ 0.46) with all other measurements except DXA UD BMD (r = 0.62, p ≤ 0.0001) and RA PHAL BMD (r = 0.52, p ≤ 0.0001). The strongest correlation across techniques was between QCT INT BMD and DXA LAT BMD (r = 0.87, p ≤ 0.0001), and the weakest correlation within a technique was between pQCT TRAB BMD and pQCT CORT BMC (r = 0.25, p ≤ 0.05). Techniques showing the highest correlations with age in the healthy groups also showed the greatest differences among groups. They also showed the best discrimination (as measured by the odds ratios) for the distinction between healthy postmenopausal and osteoporotic postmenopausal groups based on age‐adjusted logistic regression analysis. For each anatomic site, the techniques providing the best results were: (1) spine, QCT TRAB BMD (annual loss, −1.2% [healthy premenopausal and healthy postmenopausal]); Student's t‐value [not the T score], 5.4 [healthy postmenopausal vs. osteoporotic postmenopausal]; odds ratio, 4.3 [age‐adjusted logistic regression for healthy postmenopausal vs. osteoporotic postmenopausal]); (2) hip, DXA TROC BMD (−0.46; 3.5; 2.2); (3) radius, DXA UD BMD (−0.44; 3.3; 1.9) and pQCT, CORT BMC (−0.72; 2.9; 1.7); (4) hand, RA PHAL (−0.51; 3.6; 2.0); and (5) calcaneus, SOS (−0.09; 3.4; 2.1) and BUA (−0.52; 2.6; 1.7). Despite these performance trends, the differences among sites and techniques were statistically insignificant (p > 0.05) using age‐adjusted receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Nevertheless, kappa score analysis (using −2.0 T score as the cut‐off value for osteopenia and −2.5 T score for osteoporosis) showed that in general the diagnostic agreement among these measurements in classifying women as osteopenic or osteoporotic was poor, with kappa scores averaging about 0.4 (exceptions were QCT TRAB/INTG BMD, DXA LAT BMD, and RA PHAL BMD, with kappa scores ranging from 0.63 to 0.89). Often different patients were estimated at risk by using different measurement sites or techniques.

[1]  S. Bentzen,et al.  The predictive value of quantitative computed tomography for vertebral body compressive strength and ash density. , 1989, Bone.

[2]  R. Mazess,et al.  Does bone measurement on the radius indicate skeletal status? Concise communication. , 1984, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  C C Glueer,et al.  Quantitative computed tomography in assessment of osteoporosis. , 1987, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[4]  C. Mautalen,et al.  Age dependence of the normal/abnormal difference of bone mineral density in osteoporotic women. , 1994, Bone and mineral.

[5]  H K Genant,et al.  Quantitative computed tomography for prediction of vertebral fracture risk. , 1985, Bone.

[6]  M. Fukunaga,et al.  Assessment of bone mass by image analysis of metacarpal bone roentgenograms: a quantitative digital image processing (DIP) method. , 1990, Radiation medicine.

[7]  H. Genant,et al.  Mild versus definite osteoporosis: Comparison of bone densitometry techniques using different statistical models , 1989, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[8]  C. Christiansen,et al.  Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry of the spine--decubitus lateral versus anteroposterior projection in osteoporotic women: comparison to single energy X-ray absorptiometry of the forearm. , 1995, Bone.

[9]  S. Greenspan,et al.  Femoral bone loss progresses with age: A longitudinal study in women over age 65 , 1994, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[10]  R R Recker,et al.  Osteoporotic bone fragility. Detection by ultrasound transmission velocity. , 1989, JAMA.

[11]  G. Guglielmi,et al.  Osteoporosis: diagnosis with lateral and posteroanterior dual x-ray absorptiometry compared with quantitative CT. , 1994, Radiology.

[12]  M. Kleerekoper,et al.  Comparison of radiographic absorptiometry with dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry and quantitative computed tomography in normal older white and black women , 1994, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[13]  M. Ito,et al.  Relationship of osteophytes to bone mineral density and spinal fracture in men. , 1993, Radiology.

[14]  P. Ross,et al.  Evidence for both generalized and regional low bone mass among elderly women , 1994, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[15]  G. Blake,et al.  The ultrasonic assessment of osteopenia as defined by dual X-ray absorptiometry. , 1994, The British journal of radiology.

[16]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Noninvasive assessment of bone mineral and structure: State of the art , 1996, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[17]  H. Genant,et al.  Bone mineral content in early-postmenopausal and postmenopausal osteoporotic women: comparison of measurement methods. , 1986, Radiology.

[18]  S. Cummings,et al.  Age‐related decrements in bone mineral density in women over 65 , 1992, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[19]  T. Spector,et al.  Prevalence of vertebral fracture in women and the relationship with bone density and symptoms: The chingford study , 1993, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[20]  M. Nevitt,et al.  Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique , 1993, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[21]  M. Jergas,et al.  Estimates of volumetric bone density from projectional measurements improve the discriminatory capability of dual X‐ray absorptiometry , 1995, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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

[23]  S. Cummings,et al.  Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures , 1993, The Lancet.

[24]  M. Laval-jeantet,et al.  Importance of measurement of spongious vertebral bone mineral density in the assessment of osteoporosis. , 1987, Bone.

[25]  K.,et al.  Differential changes in bone mineral density of the appendicular and axial skeleton with aging: relationship to spinal osteoporosis. , 1981, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[26]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Distal radius: in vivo assessment with quantitative MR imaging, peripheral quantitative CT, and dual X-ray absorptiometry. , 1996, Radiology.

[27]  B. Riggs,et al.  Noninvasive bone mineral measurements. , 1983, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[28]  H. Genant,et al.  Vertebral mineral determination by quantitative CT: clinical feasibility and normative data , 1983 .

[29]  D. Felson,et al.  Bone mineral density in elderly men and women: Results from the framingham osteoporosis study , 1992, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[30]  H. Genant,et al.  Precise measurement of vertebral mineral content using computed tomography. , 1980, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[31]  P. Schneider,et al.  [Peripheral quantitative computed tomography for bone mineral measurement using a new special QCT-scanner. Methodology, normal values, comparison with manifest osteoporosis]. , 1991, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.

[32]  H K Genant,et al.  Quantitative Computed Tomography of Vertebral Spongiosa: A Sensitive Method for Detecting Early Bone Loss After Oophorectomy , 1982, Annals of internal medicine.

[33]  M. Jergas,et al.  Assessment of the skeletal status by peripheral quantitative computed tomography of the forearm: Short‐term precision in vivo and comparison to dual X‐ray absorptiometry , 1995, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[34]  L. Avioli,et al.  Dual energy radiography versus quantitative computer tomography for the diagnosis of osteoporosis. , 1990, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[35]  K Engelke,et al.  Radiographic absorptiometry for bone mineral measurement of the phalanges: precision and accuracy study. , 1994, Radiology.

[36]  T. Stijnen,et al.  Noninvasive axial and peripheral assessment of bone mineral content: A comparison between osteoporotic women and normal subjects , 1989, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[37]  M. Jergas,et al.  Quantitative CT assessment of the lumbar spine and radius in patients with osteoporosis. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[38]  T. Tomomitsu,et al.  Indexes of bone mineral content on second metacarpal bone roentgenogram analyzed by digital image processing: a comparison with other bone mass quantifying methods. , 1990, Radiation medicine.

[39]  C. Christiansen,et al.  Measurement of spinal or peripheral bone mass to estimate early postmenopausal bone loss? , 1988, The American journal of medicine.

[40]  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.

[41]  C C Glüer,et al.  Spinal bone mineral density measured with quantitative CT: effect of region of interest, vertebral level, and technique. , 1990, Radiology.

[42]  P Rüegsegger,et al.  Differential effects of aging and disease on trabecular and compact bone density of the radius. , 1991, Bone.

[43]  H. Genant,et al.  DETERMINATION OF BONE MINERAL LOSS IN THE AXIAL SKELETON OF OOPHORECTOMIZED WOMEN USING QUANTITATIVE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY. , 1982 .

[44]  Harry K. Genant,et al.  Consensus development conference: diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. , 1993, The American journal of medicine.

[45]  G. Wheeler,et al.  Bone mass measurements in the distal forearm using dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry and γ‐ray computed tomography: A longitudinal, in vivo comparative study , 1992, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.