Literature DB >> 26071169

A DXA Whole Body Composition Cross-Calibration Experience: Evaluation With Humans, Spine, and Whole Body Phantoms.

Diane Krueger1, Jessie Libber2, Jennifer Sanfilippo3, Hui Jing Yu4, Blaine Horvath4, Colin G Miller5, Neil Binkley2.   

Abstract

New densitometer installation requires cross-calibration for accurate longitudinal assessment. When replacing a unit with the same model, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry recommends cross-calibrating by scanning phantoms 10 times on each instrument and states that spine bone mineral density (BMD) should be within 1%, whereas total body lean, fat, and %fat mass should be within 2% of the prior instrument. However, there is limited validation that these recommendations provide adequate total body cross-calibration. Here, we report a total body cross-calibration experience with phantoms and humans. Cross-calibration between an existing and new Lunar iDXA was performed using 3 encapsulated spine phantoms (GE [GE Lunar, Madison, WI], BioClinica [BioClinica Inc, Princeton, NJ], and Hologic [Hologic Inc, Bedford, MA]), 1 total body composition phantom (BioClinica), and 30 human volunteers. Thirty scans of each phantom and a total body scan of human volunteers were obtained on each instrument. All spine phantom BMD means were similar (within 1%; <-0.010 g/cm2 bias) between the existing and new dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry unit. The BioClinica body composition phantom (BBCP) BMD and bone mineral content (BMC) values were within 2% with biases of 0.005 g/cm2 and -3.4 g. However, lean and fat mass and %fat differed by 4.6%-7.7% with biases of +463 g, -496 g, and -2.8%, respectively. In vivo comparison supported BBCP data; BMD and BMC were within ∼2%, but lean and fat mass and %fat differed from 1.6% to 4.9% with biases of +833 g, -860 g, and -1.1%. As all body composition comparisons exceeded the recommended 2%, the new densitometer was recalibrated. After recalibration, in vivo bias was lower (<0.05%) for lean and fat; -23 and -5 g, respectively. Similarly, BBCP lean and fat agreement improved. In conclusion, the BBCP behaves similarly, but not identical, to human in vivo measurements for densitometer cross-calibration. Spine phantoms, despite good BMD and BMC agreement, did not detect substantial lean and fat differences observed using BBCP and in vivo assessments. Consequently, spine phantoms are inadequate for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry whole body composition cross-calibration.
Copyright © 2016 The International Society for Clinical Densitometry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cross-calibration; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; in vivo; spine phantom; whole body phantom

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26071169      PMCID: PMC4674392          DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2015.04.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Densitom        ISSN: 1094-6950            Impact factor:   2.617


  5 in total

1.  Evaluation of a new body composition phantom for quality control and cross-calibration of DXA devices.

Authors:  E Diessel; T Fuerst; C F Njeh; F Tylavsky; J Cauley; M Dockrell; H K Genant
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2000-08

2.  The intra- and inter-instrument reliability of DXA based on ex vivo soft tissue measurements.

Authors:  Yan Guo; Paul W Franks; Thomas Brookshire; P Antonio Tataranni
Journal:  Obes Res       Date:  2004-12

Review 3.  The Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry: acquisition of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry body composition and considerations regarding analysis and repeatability of measures.

Authors:  Thomas N Hangartner; Sarah Warner; Pierre Braillon; Larry Jankowski; John Shepherd
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2013 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.617

4.  Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and executive summary of the 2007 ISCD Position Development Conference.

Authors:  Sanford Baim; Neil Binkley; John P Bilezikian; David L Kendler; Didier B Hans; E Michael Lewiecki; Stuart Silverman
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2008 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.617

5.  A comparison of phantoms for cross-calibration of lumbar spine DXA.

Authors:  D Pearson; S A Cawte; D J Green
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.507

  5 in total
  1 in total

1.  Amalgamated Reference Data for Size-Adjusted Bone Densitometry Measurements in 3598 Children and Young Adults-the ALPHABET Study.

Authors:  Nicola J Crabtree; Nicholas J Shaw; Nicholas J Bishop; Judith E Adams; M Zulf Mughal; Paul Arundel; Mary S Fewtrell; S Faisal Ahmed; Laura A Treadgold; Wolfgang Högler; Natalie A Bebbington; Kate A Ward
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2016-09-07       Impact factor: 6.741

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.