Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Osteoporosis International 7/2010

Open Access 01-07-2010 | Original Article

Does standardized BMD still remove differences between Hologic and GE-Lunar state-of-the-art DXA systems?

Authors: B. Fan, Y. Lu, H. Genant, T. Fuerst, J. Shepherd

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 7/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Summary

The standardized bone mineral density (sBMD) values, derived using universal standardized equations, were shown to be equivalent within 1.0% for hip but significantly different for spine for state-of-art fan-beam dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) Hologic and GE-Lunar systems. Spine L1-L4 and L2-L4 sBMD mean differences between the two systems were 0.042 g/cm2 (4.1%) and 0.035 g/cm2 (3.2%), respectively.

Introduction

The objective of this study is to validate the 1994 pencil-beam DXA “universal standardization equations” for state-of-the-art fan-beam DXA systems.

Methods

The spine and bilateral femurs of 87 postmenopausal women were scanned on both Hologic Delphi and GE-Lunar Prodigy DXA systems at three different clinical centers. The scans were analyzed using Hologic Apex and GE-Lunar EnCore software. The BMD results were converted to sBMD using the equations previously developed. Linear regression analysis was used to describe the relationship of the two systems’ BMD results. Bland–Altman analysis was used to assess the differences in measures.

Results

The Apex and Prodigy sBMD values were highly correlated (r ranged from 0.92 to 0.98). Spine L1-L4 and L2-L4 sBMD values had significant intercepts and slopes for Bland–Altman regression, with mean differences of 0.042 g/cm2 (4.1%) and 0.035 g/cm2 (3.2%), respectively. The total hip and neck sBMD showed no significant intercept and slope, except left total sBMD had a significant difference between the two systems of 0.009 g/cm2 (1.0%).

Conclusions

The sBMD values were shown to be equivalent within 1.0% for hip but were significantly different for spine on the two systems. Biases may persist in pooled sBMD data from different manufacturers, and further study is necessary to determine the cause.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Genant HK, Grampp S, Gluer CC, Faulkner KG, Jergas M, Engelke K, Hagiwara S, Van Kuijk C (1994) Universal standardization for dual x-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results. J Bone Miner Res 9:1503–1514CrossRefPubMed Genant HK, Grampp S, Gluer CC, Faulkner KG, Jergas M, Engelke K, Hagiwara S, Van Kuijk C (1994) Universal standardization for dual x-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results. J Bone Miner Res 9:1503–1514CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference International Committee for Standards in Bone Measurement (1997) Standardization of proximal femur bone mineral density (BMD) measurements by DXA. Bone 21:369–370CrossRef International Committee for Standards in Bone Measurement (1997) Standardization of proximal femur bone mineral density (BMD) measurements by DXA. Bone 21:369–370CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Hui SL, Gao S, Zhou XH, Johnston CC Jr, Lu Y, Gluer CC, Grampp S, Genant H (1997) Universal standardization of bone density measurements: a method with optimal properties for calibration among several instruments. J Bone Miner Res 12:1463–1470CrossRefPubMed Hui SL, Gao S, Zhou XH, Johnston CC Jr, Lu Y, Gluer CC, Grampp S, Genant H (1997) Universal standardization of bone density measurements: a method with optimal properties for calibration among several instruments. J Bone Miner Res 12:1463–1470CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Lu Y, Fuerst T, Hui S, Genant HK (2001) Standardization of bone mineral density at femoral neck, trochanter and Ward’s triangle. Osteoporos Int 12:438–444CrossRefPubMed Lu Y, Fuerst T, Hui S, Genant HK (2001) Standardization of bone mineral density at femoral neck, trochanter and Ward’s triangle. Osteoporos Int 12:438–444CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Boudousq V, Goulart DM, Dinten JM, de Kerleau CC, Thomas E, Mares O, Kotzki PO (2005) Image resolution and magnification using a cone beam densitometer: optimizing data acquisition for hip morphometric analysis. Osteoporos Int 16:813–822CrossRefPubMed Boudousq V, Goulart DM, Dinten JM, de Kerleau CC, Thomas E, Mares O, Kotzki PO (2005) Image resolution and magnification using a cone beam densitometer: optimizing data acquisition for hip morphometric analysis. Osteoporos Int 16:813–822CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Fan B, Lewiecki EM, Sherman M, Lu Y, Miller PD, Genant HK, Shepherd JA (2008) Improved precision with Hologic Apex software. Osteoporos Int 19:1597–1602CrossRefPubMed Fan B, Lewiecki EM, Sherman M, Lu Y, Miller PD, Genant HK, Shepherd JA (2008) Improved precision with Hologic Apex software. Osteoporos Int 19:1597–1602CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160CrossRefPubMed Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Genant HK (1995) Universal standardization for dual X-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results. J Bone Miner Res 10:997–998CrossRefPubMed Genant HK (1995) Universal standardization for dual X-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results. J Bone Miner Res 10:997–998CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Shepherd JA, Fan B, Lu Y, Lewiecki EM, Miller P, Genant HK (2006) Comparison of BMD precision for Prodigy and Delphi spine and femur scans. Osteoporos Int 17:1303–1308CrossRefPubMed Shepherd JA, Fan B, Lu Y, Lewiecki EM, Miller P, Genant HK (2006) Comparison of BMD precision for Prodigy and Delphi spine and femur scans. Osteoporos Int 17:1303–1308CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Pearson D, Horton B, Green DJ (2006) Cross calibration of DXA as part of an equipment replacement program. J Clin Densitom 9:287–294CrossRefPubMed Pearson D, Horton B, Green DJ (2006) Cross calibration of DXA as part of an equipment replacement program. J Clin Densitom 9:287–294CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Ozdemir A, Ucar M (2007) Standardization of spine and hip BMD measurements in different DXA devices. Eur J Radiol 62:423–426CrossRefPubMed Ozdemir A, Ucar M (2007) Standardization of spine and hip BMD measurements in different DXA devices. Eur J Radiol 62:423–426CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Henzell S, Dhaliwal SS, Price RI, Gill F, Ventouras C, Green C, Da Fonseca F, Holzherr M, Prince R (2003) Comparison of pencil-beam and fan-beam DXA systems. J Clin Densitom 6:205–210CrossRefPubMed Henzell S, Dhaliwal SS, Price RI, Gill F, Ventouras C, Green C, Da Fonseca F, Holzherr M, Prince R (2003) Comparison of pencil-beam and fan-beam DXA systems. J Clin Densitom 6:205–210CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Ellis KJ, Shypailo RJ (1998) Bone mineral and body composition measurements: cross-calibration of pencil-beam and fan-beam dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers. J Bone Miner Res 13:1613–1618CrossRefPubMed Ellis KJ, Shypailo RJ (1998) Bone mineral and body composition measurements: cross-calibration of pencil-beam and fan-beam dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers. J Bone Miner Res 13:1613–1618CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Blake GM, Harrison EJ, Adams JE (2004) Dual X-ray absorptiometry: cross-calibration of a new fan-beam system. Calcif Tissue Int 75:7–14CrossRefPubMed Blake GM, Harrison EJ, Adams JE (2004) Dual X-ray absorptiometry: cross-calibration of a new fan-beam system. Calcif Tissue Int 75:7–14CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Ruetsche AG, Lippuner K, Jaeger P, Casez JP (2000) Differences between dual X-ray absorptiometry using pencil beam and fan beam modes and their determinants in vivo and in vitro. J Clin Densitom 3:157–166CrossRefPubMed Ruetsche AG, Lippuner K, Jaeger P, Casez JP (2000) Differences between dual X-ray absorptiometry using pencil beam and fan beam modes and their determinants in vivo and in vitro. J Clin Densitom 3:157–166CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Griffiths MR, Noakes KA, Pocock NA (1997) Correcting the magnification error of fan beam densitometers. J Bone Miner Res 12:119–123CrossRefPubMed Griffiths MR, Noakes KA, Pocock NA (1997) Correcting the magnification error of fan beam densitometers. J Bone Miner Res 12:119–123CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Hwua Y-S, Huang B-Y, Hua M-Y, Wen H-W (2008) Differrece in the spinal bone mineral density measured with and without hip flexion. J Clin Densitom 11:453CrossRef Hwua Y-S, Huang B-Y, Hua M-Y, Wen H-W (2008) Differrece in the spinal bone mineral density measured with and without hip flexion. J Clin Densitom 11:453CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Nord R, Ergun D, Faulkner K (2002) Effect of patient positioning devices on bone density measurements. J Bone Miner Res 17:313 Nord R, Ergun D, Faulkner K (2002) Effect of patient positioning devices on bone density measurements. J Bone Miner Res 17:313
Metadata
Title
Does standardized BMD still remove differences between Hologic and GE-Lunar state-of-the-art DXA systems?
Authors
B. Fan
Y. Lu
H. Genant
T. Fuerst
J. Shepherd
Publication date
01-07-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Osteoporosis International / Issue 7/2010
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-1062-3

Other articles of this Issue 7/2010

Osteoporosis International 7/2010 Go to the issue