Literature DB >> 15037973

Dual X-ray absorptiometry: cross-calibration of a new fan-beam system.

G M Blake1, E J Harrison, J E Adams.   

Abstract

The high precision and stable calibration of dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanners have led to their widespread use in longitudinal studies for research and the follow-up of individual patients who are receiving treatment for osteoporosis. However, difficulties in maintaining the continuity of the bone mineral density (BMD) calibration scale can arise when an old DXA system is replaced by a newer model. We report the results of an in vivo cross-calibration study performed when a GE-Lunar Prodigy fan-beam system replaced a DPX-L pencil-beam scanner. Lumbar spine and hip DXA scans were performed in 133 patients (104 female, 29 male) attending long-term BMD monitoring. On average, lumbar spine BMD measurements on the two systems agreed closely, with Prodigy values 1% lower than those on the DPX-L. However, after allowing for this difference, the root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.037 g/cm2 was larger than in previous cross-calibration studies reported in the literature, and was 3 times the value expected from the precision of the BMD measurements. Mean femoral neck BMD also agreed closely between the two systems, although for Prodigy, the spread of measurements was 10% smaller than that for the DPX-L. For the trochanter and Ward's triangle regions, mean BMD was 4% and 6% lower, respectively, on the Prodigy system, and the results were affected by a similar compression of the range of values. RMSE values were 0.037 g/cm2, 0.044 g/cm2, and 0.044 g/cm2, respectively, for the femoral neck, trochanter, and Ward's triangle sites. When the high value of the RMSE was investigated, it was found that for lumbar spine BMD, patient body weight and the difference between the two systems in the percentage fat reported in the soft tissue reference region explained 40% of the variance. This enabled equations to be developed that significantly improved the agreement between scans performed on the two systems. Smaller improvements were obtained for the femur BMD measurements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15037973     DOI: 10.1007/s00223-004-0169-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int        ISSN: 0171-967X            Impact factor:   4.333


  9 in total

1.  Pediatric in vivo cross-calibration between the GE Lunar Prodigy and DPX-L bone densitometers.

Authors:  Nicola J Crabtree; N J Shaw; C M Boivin; B Oldroyd; J G Truscott
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  An update on the assessment of osteoporosis using radiologic techniques.

Authors:  John Damilakis; Thomas G Maris; Apostolos H Karantanas
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-11-28       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Measurements of bone mineral density in the lumbar spine and proximal femur using lunar prodigy and the new pencil-beam dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  Dongil Choi; Deog-Yoon Kim; Chung Soo Han; Seonwoo Kim; Hae Sook Bok; Wooseong Huh; Jae-Wook Ko; Sung Hwa Hong
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2009-11-20       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Cross-calibration and comparison of variability in 2 bone densitometers in a research setting: the framingham experience.

Authors:  David R Gagnon; Robert R McLean; Marian T Hannan; L Adrienne Cupples; Mary Hogan; Douglas P Kiel
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2010-03-27       Impact factor: 2.617

5.  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
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-10-27       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  iDXA, Prodigy, and DPXL dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry whole-body scans: a cross-calibration study.

Authors:  Holly Hull; Qing He; John Thornton; Fahad Javed; Lynn Allen; Jack Wang; Richard N Pierson; Dympna Gallagher
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2008-11-22       Impact factor: 2.617

7.  Bone Density in the Obese Child: Clinical Considerations and Diagnostic Challenges.

Authors:  Jennifer C Kelley; Nicola Crabtree; Babette S Zemel
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2017-01-20       Impact factor: 4.333

8.  Cross-Calibration of GE Healthcare Lunar Prodigy and iDXA Dual-Energy X-Ray Densitometers for Bone Mineral Measurements.

Authors:  J Saarelainen; M Hakulinen; T Rikkonen; H Kröger; M Tuppurainen; H Koivumaa-Honkanen; R Honkanen; M Hujo; J S Jurvelin
Journal:  J Osteoporos       Date:  2016-04-27

9.  Does Bone Mineral Density Differ between Fan-Beam and Pencil-Beam?: A Meta-Analysis and Systemic Review.

Authors:  Byung-Ho Yoon; Young Do Koh; Jun-Il Yoo; Sujin Kim; Guen Young Lee; Sung Bin Park; Yong-Chan Ha
Journal:  J Bone Metab       Date:  2021-02-28
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.